#  ■ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/controversybetwe1855broo 


^Lvcv^tw  ^  o  <A\3  , 


THE 

CONTROVERSY 

BETWEEN 

SENATOR  BROOKS 

AND 

“f  J  O  H  N,” 

ARCHBISHOP  OF  HEW  YORK. 

GEOWING  OUT  OF  THE  SPEECH  OF  SENATOR  BROOKS  ON  THE 

CHURCH  PROPERTY  BILL. 

IN  THE  N.  Y.  STATE  SENATE,  MARCH  6th,  1855. 


ARRANGED  FOR  PUBLICATION, 

WITH  AN 

t 

INTRODUCTORY  PREFACE, 

BY 

W.  S.  TISDALE. 


NEW  YORK: 

DE  WITT  &  DAVENPORT,  PUBLISHERS, 

160  AND  162  NASSAU  STREET. 


•  *■  s* 

•'  ■ 

jjjm  mm 


. 


. 


. 


* 


PREFACE. 


The  people  of  the  United  States,  to  whom  the  intelligence  of  any  event  of  import¬ 
ance  is  conveyed  with  electric  speed,  are  well  acquainted  with  the  circumstances 
attending  the  visit  of  the  Pope’s  Nuncio,  Bedini,  to  this  country,  under  pretence  of  a 
mission  to  Brazil,  and  the  effort  on  his  part  to  wrest  the  Church  property  of  the 
Roman  Catholics  from  the  hands  of  the  Trustees,  place  it  "in  the  individual  hands  of 
the  Bishops,  and  with  the  purpose  of  enforcing  all  the  Canon  Laws  as  now  in  force 
at  Rome.  The  people  are  also  well  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  Trustees  of  the  St. 
Louis  Catholic  Church,  of  Buffalo,  protested  against  this  measure — perhaps  for  the 
reason  that  they  had  not  been  schooled  in  the  one-man-power  system  of  government, 
so  prevalent  in  other  countries — having  very  likely  become  somewhat  tainted  with 
Republicanism. 

And  here  we  will  take  occasion  to  mention,  that,  notwithstanding  the  “  anathe¬ 
mas  ”  and  “  excommunications  ”  hurled  at  the  rebellious,  protesting  Trustees  of  the 
Catholic  Church  of  Buffalo,  those  gentleman  still  “live,  move,  and  have  their-being” 
— that  their  digestion  is  unimpaired,  their  “insensible  perspiration  ”  is  unobstructed, 
and  their  chances  for  salvation  in  the  life  to  come  bear  a  more  promising  aspect  now 
than  ever  before. 

We  mention  this  circumstance  for  the  benefit  of  those  very,  very  ignorant  beings 
who  devoutly  believe  that  a  “  bull,”  or  “  anathema,”  or  “  curse,”  emanating  from 
the  weak-minded  old  gentleman  called  the  Pope  of  Rome,  possesses  a  power  to  injure 
the  person  against  whom  the  “  bull  ”  or  “  curse  ”  is  uttered. 

The  noble  stand  taken  by  the  Trustees  of  the  St.  Louis  Church,  emboldened  others, 
who  were  justly  alarmed  at  the  terrible  blow  aimed  at  their  method  of  managing 
their  church  property — a  method  more  in  consonance  with  the  spirit  of  our  repub¬ 
lican  institutions, — and  they  very  properly  manifested  their  disapprobation  of  the 
Pope’s  interference  in  their  affairs,  through  his  accredited  agent,  the  detested  Bedini. 
If  the  Catholics  had  cause  to  be  alarmed  at  the  enactment  of  so  tyrannical  a  scheme, 
how  much  more  cause  had  the  Protestants  to  fear  the  consummation  of  a  measure 
whose  nature  was  in  direct  antagonism  to  that  of  their  established  usages  ?  Jealous 
as  the  American  Republicans  are  of  all  monster  monopolies  centred  in  the  sole 
possession  of  any  one  man,  is  it  a  matter  of  surprise  that  they  looked  upon  this 
audacious  plan  of  Pius  IX.  (through  his  agent  Bedini),  with  extreme  jealousy  ? 
Is  it  astonishing,  we  ask,  that  the  American  Protestants  were  jealous  of  this  plan 
of  the  Roman  Pontiff  to  get  the  power  of  wealth,  the  means  of  corruption,  the 
“  sinews  of  war,"  into  the  hands  of  the  squad  of  his  obedient  t  bishops,  who  are 
obliged  to  visit  him  periodically,  for  the  purpose  of  conferring  with  him  in  a  social 


PREFACE. 


viii 

way  on  the  temporal  and  spiritual  state  of  this  country,  and  to  mark  out  plans  for 
future  action?  Indeed,  it  would  be  a  matter  for  especial  wonder,  if  the  thinking, 
|  intelligent  portion  of  the  Catholics  themselves  were  not  aroused  to  a  sense  of  the 
impending  danger,  and  to  a  determined  action  against  the  arbitrary  steps  of  Bedini 
and  his  coadjutors,  the  archbishops  and  bishops. 

To  that  great  apostle  of  the  Protestant  and  American  doctrines,  Gayazzi,  both  the 
liberal  Catholics  and  the  American  Protestants  are  indebted  for  an  exposition  of  the 
base  character  of  the  Pope’s  Nuncio  Bedixi,  the  indirect  cause  of  the  Church 
property  contentions,  the  evil  genius  whose  presence  has  created  this  discord.  Thus 
it  was  that  Bedini’s  attempt  to  change  the  plan  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  pro¬ 
perty  management,  as  adopted  in  this  country,  to  a  plan  more  in  accordance  with  the 
views  and  plans  of  Pius  IX.,  gave  rise  to  an  exciting  contest  between  the  heads  of 
the  Romish  Church  and  the  laity,  and  aroused  the  indignation  of  the  Protestants 
and  independent  Catholics  of  the  United  States. 

In  compliance  with  the  wishes  of  some  of  the  higher  order  of  Catholics,  and  for 
the  purpose  of  faithfully  representing  the  interests  of  his  constituency,  our  American 
Senator,  Hon.  James  O.  Putnam,  introduced  a  bill  providing  for  the  vesting  of  the 
title  of  lands  dedicated  to  religious  uses  in  lay  Trustees  of  the  congregation  enjoying 
the  same. 

Pending  the  passage  of  this  important  bill,  the  Hon.  Ekastus  Brooks,  the  Hon. 
Thomas  R.  Whitney,  and  Hon.  James  0.  Putnam,  representatives  of  the  National 
American  Party,  made  the  most  able  speeches  which  were  made  during  the  session ; 
nobly  vindicating  the  rights  of  the  American  people,  and  sustaining,  in  the  most 
efficient  manner  the  principles  which  they  were  instructed  to  carry  out  in  their 
legislative  and  representative  capacites. 

The  Scriptural  phrase  of  “Well  done  thou  good  and  faithful  servant”  applies  with 
peculiar  aptitude  to  each  of  these  American  Senators,  and  we  trust  that  a  grateful 
constituency  having  a  just  appreciation  of  a  faithful  discharge  of  duties,  will  not  allow 
them  to  be  forgotten  in  the  future. 

The  Hon.  Erastus  Brooks,  during  the  delivery  of  his  able  speech  on  the  Church 
Property  Bill,  delivered  in  the  Senate,  March  6th  1855,  said,  “  I  suppose  its  ”  (the 
‘  John  Hughes  ’  property)  value  to  be  in  New  York  alone,  not  much  short  of  Jive 
millions  of  dollars which  startling  announcement  drew  from  the  Archbishop  one 
of  those  semi-political  letters  for  which  he  is  celebrated,  if  not  notorious,  and  this 
attack  started  the  controversary. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  +  Bishop  had  just  returned  from  Rome,  the 
residence  of  his  “  Holy  Father,”  and  was,  consequently,  greatly  puffed  up  with  an  in¬ 
ordinate  estimation  of  his  own  importance,  when  our  Senator’s  heretical  proceedings 
came  to  his  knowledge.  With  the  glitter  and  show  appertaining  to  the  paraphernalia 
of  Rome’s  spiritual  royalty  still  gleaming  before  his  eyes,  he  forgot  that  the  American 
people  did  not  care  a  snap  of  their  fingers  for  his  Romish  “  father’s  ”  grand  flourish 
respecting  the  “  immaculate  ”  nonsense  ;  and  vainly  believed  that  he  could  abash  an 
intelligent,  free-born  American,  as  easily  as  he  could  an  ignorant,  soul-suborned 
Romish  idolater. 

Fresh  from  the  court  of  Rome,  where  his  “  Holy  Father  ”  is  •protected  from  the 
people's  affectionate  caresses,  ly  an  army  of  splendidly  uniformed  Frenchmen;  newly 
arrived  from  that  scene  of  magnificent  folly,  in  which  the  high  dignitaries  of  the 
Romish  Church  participated  so  luxuriously  ;  +  Bishop  Hughes  could  not  all  at  once 
realize  that  Senator  Brooks,  in  his  plain  American  dress,  was  just  as  good  a  man  as 


PREFACE. 


ix 

t  Archbishop  Hughes,  in  all  his  scarlet  robes  and  golden  trappings.  This  he  could 
not  realize,  and  was  simple  enough  to  believe  that  the  “  t  Archbishop  of  the  Pro¬ 
vince  of  New  York,”  as  he  lorded  it  in  Rome,  was  pretty  much  the  same  consequen¬ 
tial  personage  here  in  America  ;  and  acting  upon  this  presumption,  he  committed 
the  egregious  blunder  of  attempting  to  sweep  from  his  path  a  man  whose  mental 
calibre  he  had  as  greatly  underrated  as  he  had  vain-gloriously  overrated  his  own. 

So  fully  was  f  John  impressed  with  the  belief  that  he  was  all-powerful,  while  the 
subject  of  his  Christian  scorn  was  comparatively  impotent,  that  he  seems  to  have 
entertained  the  idea  of  at  once  annihilating  the  Senator  by  a  puerile  stroke  of  satirr 
cal  playfulness,  eliminated  from  the  bitterness  of  his  soul.  Never  did  a  fallable 
t  Pontiff  or  a  frail  f  Bishop  make  a  greater  mistake.  The  unpretending  Senator  was 
more  than  a  match  for  the  pompous  prelate ;  the  “  vile  insect  ”  has  proved  himself 
“  the  better  man.”  The  American  Senator,  with  his  honest  straightforwardness,  his 
rational  argumentation,  his  gentlemanly  bearing,  and  his  calm,  Christian  temper,  has 
gained  a  most  signal  triumph  over  the  Celtic  t  Archbishop,  with  his  logical  artifice, 
his  tortuous  and  subtle  wanderings  in  the  outskirts  of  the  main  fact,  his  ill-man¬ 
nered,  insulting,  rude,  querulous,  angry,  and  un-Christian  method  of  conducting  the 
controversy. 

Heretofore,  the  cunning  f  John  of  this  Province  has  succeeded  in  drawing  off  his 
opponents  from  the  immediate  issue  arising,  by  wandering  away  off  and  around 
about  the  suburbs  of  the  main  point,  thus,  Jack-o’-Lantern-like,  alluring  his  oppo¬ 
nent  into  the  muddy  regions  of  sophism.  In  this  instance,  our  f  Jack-o’-Lantern  has 
been  foiled  in  his  attempts  to  lead  the  Senator  off,  and  his  irrevelant  subjects  have 
been  forced  into  the  controversy  to  no  purpose. 

The  effect  and  marked  ability  with  which  the  Hon.  Eeastus  Brooks  has  handled 
the  philippics  of  “+  John,  Archbishop  of  New  York,”  has  been  the  most  prominent 
theme  throughout  the  newspaper  world  for  some  time  past,  and  if  the  Editors  who 
have  no  crosses  in  their  “  cases,”  have  perceived  the  advantage  gained  by  the  hon¬ 
orable  gentleman  over  his  arch  adversary  ;  and  have  cried  out  “  liabet  /”  surely  they 
were-excusable  for  uttering  the  truth,  even  though  that  truthful  shaft  were  aimed  at 
the  mitred  head  of  a  great  +  dignitary  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  The  few  remarks 
with  which  we  have  prefaced  this  controversy,  may  subject  us  to  a  severe  rebuke, 
which  may  be  followed  by  a  promise  of  forgiveness  on  certain  conditions — but  we 
care  so  little  for  the  reprimands  of  f  Bishops,  that  such  a  fulmination  would  “  pass 
by  us  as  the  idle  wind  which  we  regard  not,”  and  as  for  the  “  forgiveness,”  we  have 
a  shilling,  for  which  we  can  be  shriven  by  the  first  “  absolving  ”  priest  at  hand. 


*  \ 


SPEECH  OF  HON.  E.  BROOKS, 


NEW  YORK  STATE  SENATOR. 


ON  THE 


CHURCH  PROPERTY  BILL. 


The  Papal  Power  in  the  State ,  and  the  Resistance  to  this 
Power  in  the  Temporalities  of  the  Church,  as  recently  seen 
in  the  United  States  and  Europe. 


IN  SENATE,  MARCH  6th,  1855. 

Mr.  Chairman  : — The  consideration  of  questions  affecting  Church  and  State  in  a  Legis¬ 
lative  body,  is  a  novelty  that  may  well  awaken  the  interest  of  sects  and  of  parties.  The 
apology  for  the  fact,  is  found  in  the  necessities  of  the  times.  One  class  of  men  fear  that 
the  tendencies  of  the  States  are  too  irreligious.  Another  class  apprehend  that  they  are 
too  heretical.  One  pulpit  fears  the  State  is  infidel,  and  another  church  assails  it  for 
disturbing  doctrines  and  dogmas  sanctified  by  age  and  deemed  essential  to  church  supre¬ 
macy.  It  is  due  to  those  who  represent- the  State  to  vindicate  by  their  action,  the 
Legislative  branch  of  the  government  from  all  such  reproaches,  and  the  more  so  as  so 
many  have  shown  a  disposition  to  assail  our  government  for  its  infidel  tendencies. 

In  the  remarks  I  propose  to  make,  I  shall  aim  to  show  that  the  political  State  is 
Protestant  in  its  character,  if  not  in  its  constitution — that  its  Republican  success  has  been 
mainly  founded  upon  its  Protestant  religion,  that  other  systems  of  faith  are  not  in 
harmony  with  true  civil  and  religious  liberty,  that  the  bill  before  us  is  a  legitimate  sub¬ 
ject  of  legislation,  and  that  we  are  called  upon  to  uphold  and  encourage  all  who  are 
seeking  to  secure  civil  and  religious  independence  from  the  control  of  a  despotic  power. 
The  State  Constitution  and  the  Constitution  of  the  Federal  Government,  though  granting 
complete  tolerance,  are  founded  upon  this  rock,  and  whosoever  would  remove  it,  would 
destroy  all  that  gives  it  moral  permanence  and  security. 

The  petitioners,  however,  who  pray  for  a  change  of  law  are  here  as  Catholics.  They 
claim  privileges  belonging  to  them  as  American  citizens.  They  have  come  to  us  as  the 
Catholics  went  to  the  British  Parliament  to  be  delivered  from  the  act  of  1699,  which  com¬ 
pelled  them  either  to  be  outlaws  from  their  country,  or  enemies  to  their  faith.  They  have 
come  as  other  British  Catholics  went  to  a  Protestant  Parliament  to  remonstrate  in  favor 
of  the  Catholics.  Since  then,  a  more  liberal  and  Catholic  spirit  has  prevailed  among 
Protestants  throughout  the  civilized  world. 

The  petitioners  pray  the  Legislature  for  the  passage  of  a  law  enforcing,  under  sufficient 
penalties,  a  faithful  compliance  with  existing  statutes,  respecting  the  tenure  of  church 
property.  They  say,  that  to  the  true  Catholic  it  is  painful  to  be  brought  in  antagonism 
with  his  Bishop  and  spiritual  guide,  but  that  such  a  law  will  prevent  this  unpleasant  con¬ 
dition  of  affairs.  By  no  portion  of  our  community,  they  add,  will  the  enforcement  of  such 
a  statute  be  hailed  with  greater  satisfaction  than  by  intelligent  and  faithful  Catholics. 

They  also  state  in  their  prayer,  “  that  for  no  higher  offence  than  simply  refusing  to 
violate  the  trust  law  of  our  State,  we  have  been  subjected  to  the  pains  of  excommunica- 


12  CONTROYERSY  BETWEEN 


tion,  and  cur  names  held  up  to  infamy  and  reproach.  For  this  cause,  too.  have  the  entire 
congregation  been  placed  under  him  (the  Bishop).  To  our  members,  the  holy  rites  of 
baptism  and  of  burial  have  been  denied.  The  marriage  sacrament  is  refused.  The  priest 
is  forbidden  to  minister  at  our  altars.  In  sickness,  and  at  the  hour  of  death,  the  holy  con¬ 
solations  of  religion  are  withheld.  To  the  Catholic  churchman,  it  is  scarcely  possible  to 
exaggerate  the  magnitude  of  such  deprivations.” 

“  We  yield  to  none,”  they,  add,  “  in  attachment  to  our  religion,  and  cheerfully  render 
to  the  Bishop  that  obedience,  in  spiritual  matters,  which  the  just  interpretation  of  our 
faith  may  require  ;  but  in  respect  to  the  temporalities  of  our  church,  we  claim  the  right 
of  obeying  the  laws  of  the  State,  whose  protection  we  enjoy.” 

They  remonstrate,  as  free  citizens,  against  the  one-man  dominion  of  Bishop  Timon. 
They  decline  to  submit  to  the  arbitrary  decision  of  Father  Bedini,  sent  to  this  State  and  to 
the  St.  Louis  church,  by  the  Pope  and  Propaganda  of  the  College  of  Rome,  to  decide  for 
one  Bishop  against  nearly  a  whole  congregation  of  believers. 

I  have  never  read  a  more  earnest,  eloquent,  or  seemingly  truthful  petition  than  this, 
emanating  from  the  trustees  of  the  St.  Louis  church  of  Buffalo.  I  believe  what  is  set 
forth  in  the  memorial  to  be  the  truth,  and  so  believing,  I  should  hold  myself  to  be  most 
unworthy  of  the  place  I  hold,  if  I  was  not  ready  to  raise  my  voice  and  give  my  vote,  in 
so  just  a  cause,  for  the  weak  against  the  strong. 

I  would  do  here  for  the  Catholic  Trustees  of  this  or  any  other  Catholic  church,  just 
what  I  would  do  for  the  Protestant  Trustees  of  a  Protestant  church — no  more  and  no  less. 
I  confess  my  education,  my  faith,  my  hopes  of  happiness,  here  and  hereafter,  to  be  founded 
upon  the  Protestant  religion.  My  prejudices,  too,  I  am  also  free  to  say,  are  Protestant. 
It  would  grieve  me  to  the  heart,  to  see  a  child  of  mine  educated  in  the  forms  and  doctrines 
of  the  Romish  church  ;  and  if  such  a  calamity  were  likely  to  befall  me,  I  should  pray  God 
most  devoutly  to  let  that  cup  pass  from  my  lips. 

Nevertheless,  Mr.  President,  I  would,  as  a  legislator,  grant  all  the  rights  to  Catholic 
believers,  that  I  would  grant  to  the  believers  of  any  other  creed.  They  have  the  same 
right  to  their  faith  that  I  have  to  mine.  I  distinguish,  too,  between  men  and  sects, 
between  believers  and  systems  of  belief.  I  think  that  men  may  be  better  than  their 
system,  as  they  may  be  worse.  At  least  it  is  a  cardinal  principle  of  every  true  faith,  that 
as  far  as  possible  we  ought  to  live  in  bonds  of  charity  with  all  mankind.  I  believe,  too, 
that  the  practical  lives  of  men  in  the  church,  in  the  State,  in  the  family,  in  business,  and 
in  the  direction  of  an  enlightened  conscience,  are  of  far  more  importance  than  any  church 
creed.  The  poet,  paraphrasing  what  Bolingbroke  wrote,  inculcated  a  true  philosophy,  if 
not  the  highest  Christianity,  when  he  uttered  the  thought — 

“  For  modes  of  faith  let  graceless  zealots  fight, 

His  can’t  be  wrong  whose  life  is  in  the  right,” 

I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  men  like  Fenelon  may  not  be  as  good  Christians  as  the 
best  of  us.  But  to  come  back  to  the  subject. 

The  independent  church  movement,  started  in  this  State,  and  caused  by  occurrences 
which  have  transpired  at  Buffalo,  Rochester,  and  elsewhere,  is  sympathized  with,  and 
encouraged,  more  or  less,  throughout  the  land.  I  recall  the  recent  outrage  upon  Father 
Brady,  at  Hartford,  Connecticut,  as  an  event  addressing  itself  to  the  sympathies  of  the 
civilized  world.  This  man  sickened  and  died  in  the  discharge  of  his  priestly  duties.  His 
pathway  to  the  grave  was  one  of  strife  and  battle.  He  appropriated  $20,000  of  his  own 
means,  and  all  he  could  beg  from  others,  to  erect  a  house  of  worship.  He  was  a  good 
man,  beloved  by  his  followers,  and  respected  of  all  men  who  knew  him.  But  he  was 
displeasing  to  his  masters,  and  therefore  banished  from  his  flock,  excluded  from  his  own 
church,  and  for  a  time  denied  the  right  of  mass  and  sepulture,  in  the  very  church  and 
churchyard  whose  walls  he  had  built,  and  whose  altars  he  had  consecrated.  His  wrongs, 
at  least,  are  not  forgotten  by  his  faithful  followers,  nor  by  those  who  cherish  a  true  man, 
no  matter  what  his  creed,  if  devoted  to  God  and  to  duty. 

In  the  same  spirit,  the  Romish  Bishop  of  Hartford  has  sought  to  establish  a  Romish 
German  church  in  the  city  of  New  Haven.  The  German  Catholics  there,  who  are  of 
sterner  stuff  than  their  Irish  brethren  (I  quote  their  own  words) ,  have  remonstrated,  and 

“  Resolved,  That  we  Roman  Catholics,  earnestly  protest  against  such  proceedings,  and  declare  to  the  Right 
Rev.  Bishop  that  we  do  not  want  a  German  Roman  Catholic  priest  here  in  New  Haven. 

Resolved,  That  we  have  suffered  already  in  our  old  fatherland  too  much  from  priestcraft  and  kingcraft  ; 
and  that  we  are  here*  in  our  new  home,  thank  our  Lord  and  God,  in  at  least  thirty  churches  other  than  Ro¬ 
man  Catholic,  that  we  are  free  from  that  yoke,  and  that  every  one  of  us  can  worship  his  God  according  to  his 
best  belief  and  conscience.” 

A  mandate  from  Rome  has  just  now  removed  four  of  the  clergy  from  the  Catholic  Col" 
lege  of  Chicago,  and  the  people  there,  deeply  aggrieved,  as  they  say,  by  the  departure 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN.  13 


from  amongst  them  of  their  beloved  clergy,  who  have  been  endeared  to  them  by  a  faithful 
and  exemplary  discharge  of  duty  for  several  years,  unanimously  resolve,  as  did  the  church 
of  St.  Louis  for  a  time  : 

“  That  we  bow  with  the  most  profound  respect  and  reverence  to  our  Church  and  Bishop,  but  as  we  do  not 
deem  the  reasons  assigned  for  the  removal  of  our  clergy  to  be  satisfactory,  we  humbly  approach  the  Holy 
See,  as  the  unerring  arbiter  of  justice  in  the  matter.” 

I  shall  not  pause  here  to  ask,  who  this  unerring  arbiter  of  justice  is,  but  I  may  show 
hereafter,  that  he  is  both  a  temporal  and  a  religious  prince,  and  demands  obedience,  hardly 
more  in  reference  to  the  dogmas  of  the  church,  than  to  sustain  dominion  in  the  state. 

What  is  true  of  the  members  of  the  St.  Louis  church,  is  true  of  many  in  my  own  city, 
of  many,  as  we  know,  in  New  England,  at  the  west,  and  in  all  parts  of  the  land,  and  I 
would  fain  hope  throughout  the  world.  Indeed,  from  the  St.  Lawrence  to  the  Gulf  of 
Mexico,  and  from  America  to  Italy  the  question  of  church  independence,  in  matters  of 
temporal  right  and  in  the  control  of  church  property,  is  now  engaging  the  earnest  atten¬ 
tion  of  the  Christian  world.  Roman  Catholicism,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  all  matters  of  power, 
is  grasping  and  aggressive.  It  is  wedded  to  principles  of  despotism.  It  makes  the 
Pope  the  supreme  governor  of  the  world,  and  second  only  to  the  Creator.  His  power  as 
a  successor  of  St.  Peter  and  Christ,  as  he  claims  to  be,  even  at  Rome,  comes  not  from  the 
people  of  Italy,  but  from  an  assembly  of  cardinals  convened  at  Rome.  The  Pope  would 
not  consent,  nor  would  the  Cardinals  consent,  nor  would  the  Bishops  consent,  that  their 
chief  should  part  with  his  temporal  sway  and  dominion.  I  propose  to  offer  some  proofs  of 
what  I  say.  The  present  Pontiff  in  his  ecclesiastical  letter,  dated  Gaffa,  in  1849,  said  : 

“  The  spiritual  power  could  not  be  separated,  nor  do  without  the  temporal  dominion,  it  being  necessary  to 
keep  them  united  in  order  to  maintain  the  splendor  and  grandeur  of  the  Catholic  Church.” 

The  Pope  rejected  the  Roman  Constitution,  stealthily  fled  from  the  Vatican  and  from 
Rome,  from  country,  and  from  people,  because,  among  other  things,  the  first  sentence  in 
that  constitution  declared  “sovereignty  is  by  eternal  right  in  the  people,”  and  because  it 
was  also  declared  in  that  constitution  that 

“  The  Roman  Republic  provides  for  the  education  of  every  citizen,  in  order  that  each  one  may  meliorate  his 
own  condition  by  industry,  work  and  enterprise.” 

The  Pope  was  not  willing  to  accept  the  condition  of  religious  or  church  independence, 
eagerly  tendered  him  in  the  7th  and  8th  constituent  principles  of  the  proposed  republic, 
and.  what  were  they  ? 

1st.  That  the  Catholic  religion  is  the  religion  of  the  State.  The  use  of  civil  and  political  rights  does  not 
depend  on  religious  creed. 

2d.  The  head  of  the  Catholic  Church  shall  have  from  the  Republic  all  necessary  guarantees  for  the  inde¬ 
pendent  exercise  of  his  Spiritual  Power. 

But  it  is  denied  in  Congress  and  elsewhere,  that  the  Head  of  the  Church  of  Rome  exer¬ 
cises  temporal  power.  As  well  deny  that  the  sun  shines  or  that  there  is  the  See  of  Rome. 
What  was  it  but  this  Papal  See  that  destroyed  Frederick  II.  for  defending  his  Civil  Rights 
against  Ecclesiastical  usurpations?  Three  generations  passed  away  before  the  Secular 
Power  gained  its  ascendancy  upon  a  field  of  blood,  and  in  all  ages  there  have  been  the 
same  examples  of  audacity. 

.  We  feel  this  Papal  Power  far  less  In  the  United  States  than  in  Europe,  because  there  it 
is  more  associated  with  ignorance,  superstition  and  despotism.  Behold  what  it  has  done, 
or  rather  left  undone  for  Italy — for  Spain — and  for  Ireland,  and  the  evil  it  has  wrought  in 
these  countries  it  would  do  for  ns,  if  it  could.  The  system  is  relaxed  here  because  free 
educated  men  can  not  bear  such  restraints. 

Already  there  are  a  cordon  of  Bishops,  Priests  and  Vicar  Generals,  stretching  from  the 
Atlantic  to  the  Pacific.  About  3,500,000  of  its  votaries  are  now  in  the  United  States,  be¬ 
sides  sixteen  hundred  Priests,  forty  Bishops,  seven  Archbishops,  one  hundred  colleges, 
seventeen  hundred  churches,  numerous  convents  and  nunneries,  and  all  these  are  banded 
and  combined,  and  not  divided  as  are  the  Protestants  into  many  sects.  The  supremacy  of 
the  Church  over  the  State,  so  far  from  being  untrue,  is  almost  a  church  dogma,  and  the 
Romanist  who  to-day  would,  if  need  be,  sacrifice  the  State  for  the  Church  would  he 
sainted,  blessed  and  shrined  at  Rome.  I  have  been  amazed  to  hear  any  one  deny  this.  It 
is  recorded  in  church  canons  and  church  bulls  over  and  over  again.  It  is  written  upon  a 
thousand  pages  of  church  history,  and  for  many  centuries  of  time. 

In  this  free  land  the  few  Catholics  born  upon  the  soil,  like  those  from  Maryland,  and  of 
which  Charles  Carroll  was  a  type,  and  some  few  educated  persons,  under  the  influence  of 
more  intelligent  ideas  of  personal  liberty  and  priestly  authority,  decline  to  submit  to  the 
tyranny  of  Pontifical  power.  But  all  Priests  know  that  the  entire  subjection  of  the  world 


CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


14 


to  the  Pope,  and  by  what  is  called  divine  right,  is  a  doctrine  promulgated  to  them,  and 
inculcated  by  them.  Eternal  damnation,  indeed,  by  more  than  one  Papal  Bull  is  held  to 
be  the  certain  punishment  of  unbelievers  and  heretics.  Let  me  read  extracts  from  some 
of  these  oaths,  anathemas  and  excommunications,  here,  and  then  let  the  intelligent  judg¬ 
ments  of  men  answer  what  must  be  the  moral  and  political  effect  of  a  power  concentrated 
all  over  the  world,  and  built  upon  a  foundation  6f  Fear,  Despotism  and  Ignorance. 

I  now  read  the  curse  pronounced  by  the  Papal  Church  against  all  who  leave  it  for  any 
evangelical  church : 

[See  Spellman’s  Glossary  in  Yale  College  for  authority.  See  also,  for  further  authority 
— not  only  ‘-'Foxes  and  Firebrands,”  in  Usher’s  works,  but  the  antiquated  form  of  it  may 
be  found  in  Baronius,  who  thus  concludes  his  account  of  it,  “  Hactemus  juramenturi, 
&c. also,  Labbeus  Concil,  Tom.  10,  page  1504,  and  Tom.  11,  page  1565 ;  An.  723  and 
1079.  For  this,  also,  we  have  authority  of  Rev.  G.  Bourne,  in  his  Illustrations  of  Popery, 
than  whom  no  better  on  this  subject  is  needed.] 

OATH  OF  EXCOMMUNICATIOX. 

“  By  the  authority  of  God  Almighty,  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  undefiled  Virgin  Mary, 
mother  and  patroness  of  our  Saviour,  and  of  all  celestial  virtues,  Angels,  Archangels,  Thrones,  Dominions, 
Powers,  Cherubim  and  Seraphim;  of  all  the  Holy  Patriarchs,  Prophets,  and  of  all  the  Apostles  and  Evangel¬ 
ists,  of  the  Holy  Innocents,  who,  in  the  sight  of  the  Holy  Lamb,  are  found  worthy  to  sing  the  new  song  of  the 
Holy  Martyrs  and  Holy  Confessors,  and  of  all  the  Holy  Virgins,  and  of  all  Saints,  together  with  the  Holy 

elect  of  God — May  he - be  damned.  We  excommunicate  and  anathematize  him  from  the  threshold  of  the 

Holy  Church  of  God  Almighty  :  We  sequester  him,  that  he  may  be  tormented,  disposed,  and  be  delivered  over 
with  Dathan  and  Abiram,  and  with  those  who  say  unto  the  Lord:  ‘Depart  from  us,  we  desire  none  of  thy 
ways;’  as  a  fire  is  quenched  with  water,  so  let  the  light  of  him  be  put  out  for  evermore,  unless  it  shall  repent 
him  and  make  satisfaction.  Amen  ! 

“  May  the  Father,  who  creates  man,  curse  him !  May  the  Son,  who  suffered  for  us,  curse  him!  May  the 
Holy  Ghost,  who  is  poured  out  in  Baptism,  curse  him !  May  the  Holy  Cross,  which  Christ,  for  our  salvation, 
triumphing  over  his  enemies,  ascendant,  curse  him  ! 

“  May  the  Holy  Mary,  ever  virgin  and  mother  of  God,  curse  him!  May  St.  Michael,  the  Advocate  of  the 
Holy  Souls,  curse  him !  May  all  the  Angels,  Principalities,  and  Powers,  and  all  Heavenly  Armies,  curse  him ! 
May  the  glorious  band  of  the  Patriarchs  and  Prophets  curse  him  ! 

“  May  St.  John  the  Precursor,  and  St.  John  the  Baptist,  and  St.  Peter,  and  St.  Paul,  and  St.  Andrew,  and 
all  other  of  Christ’s  Apostles  together,  curse  him !  And  may  all  the  rest  of  the  Disciples  and  Evangelists,  who, 
by  their  preaching,  converted  the  universe,  and  the  holy  and  wonderful  company  of  Martyrs  and  Confessors, 
who,  by  their  works,  are  found  pleasing  to  God  Almighty — May  the  holy  choir  of  the  Holy  Virgins,  who,  for 
the  honor  of  Christ,  have  despised  the  things  of  the  world,  damn  him !  May  all  the  saints  from  the  beginning 
of  the  world  to  everlasting,  who  are  found  to  be  beloved  of  God,  damn  him  ! 

“  May  he  be  damned  where  he  is,  whether  in  t}ie  house,  or  in  the  alley,  or  in  the  woods,  or  in  the  water,  or 
in  the  church  !  May  he  be  cursed  in  living  and  dying  ! 

u  May  he  be  cursed  in  eating  and  drinking,  in  being  hungry,  in  being  thirsty,  in  fasting,  and  sleeping,  in 
slumbering,  and  in  sitting,  in  living,  in  working,  in  resting,  and  *  *  *  *  and  in  blood-letting ! 

“  May  he  be  cursed  in  all  the  faculties  of  his  body ! 

“  May  he  be  cursed  inwardly  and  outwardly !  May  he  be  cursed  in  his  hair,  cursed  be  he  in  his  brains  and 
in  his  vertex,  in  his  temples,  in  his  eyebrows,  in  his  cheeks  in  his  jaw-bones,  in  his  nostrils,  in  his  teeth  and 
grinders,  in  his  lips,  in  his  shoulders,  in  his  arms,  in  his  fingers  ! 

“  May  he  be  damned  in  his  mouth,  in  his  breast,  in  his  heart,  and  purtenances,  down  to  the  very  stomach ! 

“  May  he  be  cursed  in  his  brains  and  his  groins,  in  his  thighs,  in  his  genitals,  and  in  his  hips,  and  in  his 
knees,  his  legs,  and  his  feet,  and  his  toe  nails  ! 

“ May  he  be  cursed  in  all  his  joints,  and  articulation  of  the  members;  from  the  crown  of  his  head  to  the 
soles  of  his  feet,  may  there  be  no  soundness  ! 

“May  the  Son  of  the  living  God,  with  all  the  glory  of  His  Majesty,  curse  him  !  And  may  Heaven,  with  all 
the  powers  that  move  therein,  rise  up  against  him,  and  curse  and  damn  him,  unless  he  repent  and  make 
satisfaction !  Amen  !  So  be  it.  Be  it  so.  Amen !” 

If  it  be  true,  that  curses,  like  chickens,  come  home  to  roost,  upon  the  power  which  has 
involved  such  maledictions,  curses  have  fallen  like  hailstones.  The  curse  has  returned  to 
plague  the  inventor.  But  let  me  read  on,  and  first  from  the  secret  instructions  of  the 
Jesuits,  and  then  from  their  oath : 

[Mr.  Brooks  then  produced  a  copy  of  these  secret  instructions,  in  English  and  Latin,  as 
follows :]  v 

“  Let  Kings  and  Princes  be  kept  up  in  this  principle,  that  the  Catholic  faith,  as  matters  now  stand,  cannot 
submit  without  the  civil  power,  which  must  be  managed  with  the  greatest  discretion.  By  this  means,  our 
members  will  work  themselves  into  the  favor  of  persons  in  the  highest  post  of  government,  and  consequently 
be  admitted  into  their  most  secret  councils. — Chap.  Yl ,  paragraph  3d. 

“Nor  will  it  contribute  a  little  to  our  advantage,  if,  with  caution  and  secresy,  we  ferment  and  heighten 
the  animosities  that  arise  among  princes  and  great  men,  even  to  such  a  degree  that  they  may  weaken  each 
other.  But  if  there  appear  any  likelihood  of  reconciliation,  then,  as  soon  as  possible,  let  us  endeavor  to  be 
the  mediators,  lest  others  prevent  us. — Chap.  17, 11,  5. 

“  *  *  Our  political  schemes  must  be  cunningly  formed,  according  to  the  different  posture  of  the  times  : 
and  princes,  our  intimates,  whom  we  can  influence  to  follow  our  councils,  must  be  pushed  on  to  embroil  them¬ 
selves  in  vigorous  war  witli  one  another,  to  the  end;  and  society  (as  promoters  of  the  universal  good  of  the 
world)  may,  on  all  hands,  be  solicited  to  contribute  its  assistance,  and  always  employed  in  being  mediators 
of  public  dissentions ;  by  this  means,  the  chief  benefices  and  preferments  in  the  church  will,  of  course,  be 
given  to  us,  by  way  of  compensation  for  our  services. — Chap.  17,  p.  S. 

“  Finally,  the  society  must  endeavor  to  effect  this,  at  least,  that,  having  got  the  favor  and  authority  of 
princes,  those  who  do  not  love  them,  at  least  hear  them.  Chap.  17,  ph.  7.  (Copied  from  the  English,  Prince¬ 
ton  and  New  York  editions.  See,  also,  translation  of  Dr.  Compton,  Bishop  of  London.) 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN.  15 


As  appropriate  to  this,  I  now  read  the  Jesuit  oath  as  follows  : 


OATH  OF  THE  JESUITS. 

[See  McGavan's  Protestant ,  vol.  2,  p.  256.] 

“  I,  A.  B.,  now  in  the  presence  of  Almighty  God,  the  blessed  Virgin  Mary,  the  blessed  Michael  the  Arch¬ 
angel,  the  blessed  St.  John  the  Baptist,  the  Holy  Apostles  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  and  all  the  saints  and  hosts 
of  heaven,  and  to  you  my  Ghostly  Father,  do  declare  from  my  heart,  without  mental  reservation,  that  his 

Holiness  Pope  - is  Christ’s  Vicar  General,  and  is  the  true  and  only  Head  of  the  Catholic  or  Universal 

Church  throughout  the  earth ;  and,  by  virtue  of  the  keys  of  binding  and  loosing,  given  to  his  Holiness  by  my 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  he  has  power  to  depose  heretical  kings,  princes,  states,  commonwealths,  and  govern¬ 
ments,  all  being  illegal  without  his  sacred  confirmation,  and  that  they  may  safely  be  destroyed :  therefore,  to 
the  utmost  of  my  power,  I  shall,  and  will,  defend  this  doctrine,  and  his  holiness’s  rights  and  customs,  against 
all  usurpers  of  the  heretical  (or  Protestant)  authority  whatsoever ;  especially  against  the  now  pretended 
authority,  and  Church  of  England,  and  all  adherents,  in  regard  that  they  and  she  be  usurpal  and  heretical, 
opposing  the  sacred  mother  Church  of  Rome.  I  do  renounce  and  disown  any  allegiance  as  due  to  Protestants, 
or  obedience  to  any  other  inferior  magistrates  or  officers.  I  do  further  declare,  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  of  England,  the  Calvinists,  Huguenots,  and  of  others  of  the  name  of  Protestants,  to  be  damnable  ; 
and  they  themselves  are  damned,  and  to  be  damned,  that  will  not  forsake  the  same.  I  do  further  declare, 
that  I  will  help,  assist,  and  advise  all  or  any  of  his  holiness’s  agents,  in  any  place  wherever  I  shall  be,  in 
England,  Scotland,  and  Ireland,  or  in  any  other  territory  or  kingdom  I  shall  come  to,  and  do  my  utmost  to 
extirpate  the  heretical  Protestant’s  doctrine,  and  to  destroy  all  their  pretended  powers,  regal  or  otherwise.  I 
do  further  promise  and  declare,  that  notwithstanding  I  am  displeased  with,  to  assume  any  religion  heretical, 
for  the  propagating  of  the  mother  church’s  interest,  to  keep  secret  and  private  all  her  agent’s  counsels,  from 
time  to  time,  as  they  entrust  me,  and  not  to  divulge,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  word,  writing,  or  circumstance 
whatever,  but  to  execute  all  that  shall  be  proposed,  given  in  charge,  or  discovered  unto  me  by  you  my  ghostly 
father,  or  any  of  this  sacred  convent.  All  which  I,  A.  B.,  do  swear  by  the  blessed  sacrament  I  am  now  to 
receive,  to  perform,  and  on  my  part  to  keep  inviolable ;  and  do  call  the  heavenly  and  glorious  host  of  Heaven 
to  witness  these  my  real  intentions  to  keep  this,  my  oath.  In  testimony  hereof,  I  take  this  most  holy  and 
blessed  sacrament  of  the  Eucharist,  and  witness  the  same,  further,  with  my  hand  and  seal,  in  the  face  of  this 
holy  convent,  this  day,  An.  Dom..  etc.” 

I 

SECRET  OATH  OF  THE  SANFEDISTI  \ 

A  society  established  by  the  Papal  government,  in  1821,  to  discover  those  citizens  who 
professed  liberal  or  heretical  opinions,  called  the  Santa  Fedesti — from  Holy  Faith — and 
with  secret  ramifications  in  all  parts  of  Italy,  and  in  foreign  countries.  The  members  have 
the  image  of  the  Virgin  Mary  suspended  from  their  necks,  and  apostolical  warrants  in 
their  pockets.  They  wear  a  medal  with  the  head  of  the  Pope  stamped  upon  it,  and  bear 
letters  of  authority  from  the  holy  congregation  to  sanctify  their  violent  deeds.  They  take 
an  oath  on  the  gospel,  which  is  stamped  upon  their  certificate,  and  reads  as  follows : 

“  I,  Son  of  the  Holy  Faith,  No.  — ,  promise  and  swear  to  sustain  the  altar  and  the  Papal  throne,  to  exter¬ 
minate  heretics,  liberals,  and  all  enemies  of  the  Church,  without  pity  for  the  cries  of  children,  or  of  men  and 
women.  So  help  me  God.” 


OATH  OF  THE  IRISH  RIBBON-MEN. 

“  I,  Patrick  McKenna,  swear  by  Saints  Peter  and  Paul,  and  by  the  blessed  Virgin  Mary,  to  be  always  faith¬ 
ful  to  the  society  of  Ribbon-men  ;  to  keep  and  conceal  all  its  secrets,  and  its  words  of  order;  to  be  always 
ready  to  execute  the  commands  of  my  superior  officers,  and,  as  far  as  it  shall  lay  in  my  power,  to  extirpate 
all  heretics,  and  all  the  Protestants,  and  to  walk  in  their  blood  to  the  knee !  May  the  Virgin  Mary  and  all 
the  saints  help  me  !  To-day,  the  2d  day  of  July,  1852.  PAT.  McKENNA,  from  Tydavmet.” 


OATH  OF  THE  BISHOFS. 

“  I,  G.  N.,  elect  of  the  Church  of  N.,  from  henceforth  will  be  faithful  and  obedient  to  St.  Peter  the  Apostle, 
and  to  the  Holy  Roman  Church,  and  to  our  lord  the  lord  N.  Pope  N.,  and  to  his  successors  canonically  coming 
in.  I  will  neither  advise,  consent,  nor  do  anything  that  they  may  lose  life  or  member,  or  that  their  persons 
may  be  seized,  or  hands  anywise  laid  upon  them,  or  any  injuries  offered  to  them,  under  any  pretence  what¬ 
ever.  The  Counsel  which  they  shall  intrust  me  withal,  by  themselves,  their  messengers  or  letters,  I  will  not 
knowingly  reveal  to  any  to  their  prejudice.  I  will  help  them  to  defend  and  keep  the  Roman  Papacy  and  the 
royalties  of  St.  Peter,  saving  my  order,  against  all  men.  The  legate  of  the  Apostolic  See,  going  and  coming, 
I  will  honorably  treat,  and  help  in  his  necessities.  Heretics,  schismatics,  and  rebels  to  our  said  lord,  or 

HIS  AFORESAID  SUCCESSORS,  I  WILL,  TO  THE  UTMOST  OF  MY  POWER,  PERSECUTE  AND  OPPOSE.  I  Will  COme  to  a  Coun¬ 
cil  when  I  am  called,  unless  I  be  hindered  by  a  canonical  impediment.  I  will  by  myself  in  person,  visit  the 
threshold  of  the  Apostles  every  three  years,  and  give  an  account  to  our  lord,  and  his  aforesaid  successors,  of 
all  my  pastoral  office,  and  of  all  things  anywise  belonging  to  the  state  of  my  Church,  to  ihe  discipline  of  my 
clergy  and  people,  and  lastly  to  the  salvation  of  souls  committed  to  my  trust ;  and  will  in  like  manner  hum¬ 
bly  receive  and  diligently  execute  the  Apostolic  commands.  The  possessions  belonging  to  my  table  I  will 
neither  sell  nor  give  away,  mortgage  nor  grant  anew  in  fee,  nor  anywise  alienate,  no,  not  even  with  the  con¬ 
sent  of  the  Chapter  of  my  Church,  without  consulting  the  Roman  Pontiff.  And  if  I  shall  make  any  aliena¬ 
tion,  I  will  thereby  incur  the  penalties  contained  in  a  certain  Constitution  put  forth  about  this  matter. 

“  So  help  me  God  and  these  Holy  Gospels  of  G,od.” 

[See  Pontiff.  Rom.  Antwerp,  Anno  1G26,  p.  59,  86.  See  also  modification  of  this  form¬ 
ula  adopted  in  1846,  and  compare  modification  with  the  original.] 


16  CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


OATH  OF  THE  PRIESTS. 

“I,  A.  B.,  do  acknowledge  the  ecclesiastical  power  of  his  holiness,  and  the  mother  Church  of  Rome  as 
the  chief  Head  and  matron  above  all  pretended  churches  throughout  the  whole  earth  :  and  that  my  zeal  shall 
be  for  St.  Peter  and  his  successors,  as  the  founder  of  the  true  and  ancient  Catholic  faith,  against  all  heretical 
kings,  princes,  states  or  powers,  repugnant  to  the  same;  and  although  I,  A.  B.,  further  do  declare  not  to  act 
or  control  any  matter  or  thing  prejudicial  unto  her,  in  her  secret  orders,  doctrines,  tenets  or  commands  with¬ 
out  leave  of  its  supreme  power  or  its  authority,  under  her  appointed  ;  and  being  so  permitted,  then  to  act 
and  further  her  interests,  more  than  my  own  earthly  good  and  earthly  pleasures,  as  she  and  her  Head  his 
Holiness  and  his  successors  have,  or  ought  to  have,  the  supremacy  over  all  kings,  princes,  estates,  or  powers 
whatsoever,  either  to  deprive  them  of  their  crowns,  sceptres,  powers,  privileges,  realms,  countries’or  govern¬ 
ments,  or  to  set  up  others  in  lieu  thereof,  they  dissenting  from  the  mother  church  and  her  commands.” 

[The  above  is  the  oath  taken  at  Maynooth  where  many  priests  are  educated  for  the 
United  States.) 

(See  also  the  Gregorian  Decretals,  lib.  2d,  tit.  24,  cap.  4,  for  evidence  as  to  the  manner 
in  which  the  Pope  doth  more  and  more  enlarge  his  power  and  enforce  subjection.  See 
also  the  works  of  Dr.  Isaac  Borrow,  vol.  7,  p.  137.) 

BULL  OP  EXCOMMUNICATION. 

The  following  was  also  read  by  Mr.  Brooks,  as  furnished  him  by  Senor  Casali,  of  New 
York : 

Issued  by  Pope  Benedict  Ylllth  against  William  lid,  King  of  Provence  in  France,  and  against  his  mother 

for  having  seized  certain  ecclesiastical  property,  administered  by  the  Monks  of  St.  Giles. 

May  they  never  be  redeemed  from  the  fate  of  Judas,  of  Ann,  Caiaphas,  Pilate  and  Herod. 

May  they  perish  by  the  curse  of  the  angels,  and  suffer  the  society  of  Satan  in  the  loss  of  their  flesh. 

May  they  be  damned  in  heaven,  in  earth,  and  in  the  regions  below. 

May  they  suffer  the  malediction  of  God,  and  of  the  world. 

May  they  suffer  continually  in  their  body,  may  their  mind  become  stupefied,  and  meet  with  all  bodily  pains, 
and  end  in  perdition. 

May  they  be  damned  with  the  damned  ones,  and  perish  with  the  wicked. 

May  they  be  damned  with  the  Jews,  who  did  not  believe  in  Christ,  and  who  crucified  him. 

May  they  be  damned  with  the  Protestants,  heretics,  who  wish  to  overthrow  the  Catholic  Church. 

May  they  be  damned  with  the  impious  and  sinners,  should  they  not  repent,  and  refuse  to  return  the  prop¬ 
erty  to  the  Monks  of  St.  Giles. 

May  they  be  damned  in  the  four  parts  of  the  world. 

Cursed  in  the  East — abandoned  in  the  West — interdicted  in  the  North — excommunicated  in  the  South. 

May  they  be  cursed  in  the  day,  excommunicated  in  the  night. 

May  they  be  damned  while  standing,  excommunicated  while  sitting. 

May  they  be  damned  in  eating,  excommunicated  in  drinking. 

May  they  be  damned  in  working,  excommunicated  in  resting. 

May  they  be  cursed  in  Spring,  and  excommunicated  in  Summer. 

May  they  be  damned  in  the  Autumn,  and  excommunicated  in  the  Winter. 

May  they  be  cursed  in  the  present,  and  excommunicated  in  the  time  to  come. 

Strangers  will  be  allowed  to  possess  themselves  of  their  property,  and  may  their  women  perish  in  sin,  and 
their  children  be  destroyed  by  the  sword. 

May  be  damned  every  one  who  shall  speak,  trade,  and  have  friendly  relations  with  them. 

May  be  excommunicated  the  Priest,  who  should  administer  to  them  the  Sacrament  of  the  Holy  Communion. 

May  be  cursed  and  excommunicated,  the  physician  who  shall  visit  them  in  their  sickness. 

May  be  cursed  the  grave-digger  who  shall  bury  their  bodies. 

In  one  word,  may  they  be  damned  with  all  possible  curses ! 

[Translated  from  Les  Preuves  de  I'ftiatoire  de  la  ville  de  Mantes  in  France.] 

Look  now  to  the  Council  of  Trent  for  evidence  of  this  supremacy  of  power.  Picture 
for  a  moment  that  city,  which,  from  1545  to  1563,  was  the  scene  of  so  many  convocations, 
ceremonials,  and  displays.  About  a  day’s  ride  from  Venice,  amidst  a  delightful  valley  of 
the  Alps,  and  on  the  river  Adige,  is  the  spot  selected  by  Paul  the  Third,  and  at  the 
moment  when  the  Emperor  Charles  is  making  war  upon  the  Protestants,  to  secure  reforms 
in  the  abuses  of  the  church.  And  what  is  the  Reformation  produced  by  this  labor  of 
eighteen  years?  Its  very  beginning  is  a  solemn  determination  to  extirpate  all  Heretics, 
and  its  closing  labors  are  the  utterances  of  anathemas.  “  Cursed  be  all  heretics,”  exclaims 
Cardinal  Lorraine.  “  Cursed,”  “  cursed,”  cries  the  council  of  255  Prelates.  And  what 
are  its  decrees?  That  no  Bible  shall  be  held,  or  read,  except  by  Priests.  That  ho  Bible 
shall  be  sold,  without  license,  except  upon  the  pains  and  penalties  of  that  mortal  sin 
which  is  neither  to  be  forgiven  in  this  world  nor  the  next  1  That  tradition  is  of  equal 
authority  with  the  Bible,  that  Episcopal  power  is  of  Papal  origin,  that  anathemas  shall 
follow  all  dissenters,  that  original  sin  is  confirmed,  that  the  seven  sacraments  are  church 
law,  that  Luther  and  Zwingli,  are  enemies  of  God,  because  enemies  of  the  Pope,  that  the 
Pope  shall  decide  upon  the  admission  of  the  cup  into  the  Lord’s  supper,  that  he  shall  also 
decide  upon  what  books  may  be  used,  and  what  catechisms  read,  and  that  there  shall  be  a 
Purgatory,  a  worship  of  Saints,  images,  relics,  monastic  vows,  fasts  kinds  of  food,  indul¬ 
gences,  &c.,  &c.  The  great  doctrine,  however,  of  this  council  was  that  the  Pontiff  alone 
could  determine  the  true  signification  of  the  Scriptures,  and  that  these  Scriptures  could 
alone  be  used  by  the  Priests. 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN.  17 


Need  “we  wonder  that  with  such  a  creed,  distinguished  Bishops  like  Dr.  Cahill  in 
England  (soon  to  be  among  us,  it  is  said,  as  a  religious  teacher),  and  Hughes,  at  home, 
declare  they  have  no  confidence  in  a  Protestant  Bible  ?  Or  that  men  like  Brownson 
write,  as  latterly,  that  “  Protestants  have  hardly  made  any  serious  attempts  to  defend 
Protestantism  as  a  religion,  and  seem  now  very  generally  prepared  to  abandon  its  defence, 
save  as  a  political  and  social  order.”  [See  Brownson’s  Quarterly  Review,  1853,  page  87.] 

Protestantism  there,  through  more  than  twenty  pages,  is  argued  not  to  be  a  religion 
“  but  a  rebellion  against  God.” 

Long  before  this  council  of  Trent,  fourteen  hundred  years  ago,  a  like  council  is  held, 
and  the  Divine  Maternity  of  Mary  is  declared  against  the  Nestorians ;  thirteen  hundred 
years  ago,  her  virginity  against  the  Jovinians ;  more  than  three  hundred  years  ago,  her 
exemption  from  venial  sin  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  now  by  Pope  and  Cardinals  her 
immaculate  conception  is  made  a  church  dogma.  Anathemas  and  excommunications 
follow  those  who  do  not  believe  all  these  things,  though  many  wise  and  good  men,  belong¬ 
ing  to  the  church,  declare  in  their  hearts  that  they  believe  this  church  dogma  opposed  to 
divine  Revelation. 

But  as  a  legislator  I  do  not  quarrel  with  these  dogmas  any  more  than  with  the  dogma 
of  the  seven  sacraments,  or  the  decree  that  Peter  was  the  successor  of  the  Saviour,  and  that 
Pio  Nino  speaks  by  the  same  authority  as  Jesus,  being  in  the  grade  of  apostolic  succession. 
Nor  in  this  place  have  I  aught  to  say  of  any  of  the  dogmas  against  which  Luther  preached. 
Calvin,  Melancthon  and  Erasmus  wrote,  Wickliffe  and  Wesley  protested,  and  which 
dissenters  in  all  times  have  opposed.  They  who  can  may  believe  all  that  has  been 
protested  against,  for  hundreds  of  years,  and  trust  their  faith  to  one  whom  they  esteem  to 
be  the  head  of  the  oiJly  true  church. 

Protestantism,  I  also  know,  has  been  aggressive  and  intolerant  at  times,  but  it  is  no  part 
of  a  true  protestant  faith  to  be  bigoted  or  uncharitable.  I  defend  no  wrong  in  my  own 
faith  because  it  is  my  own.  Calvin  could  sentence  Servetus  to  death  for  heresy,  and  not 
only  hear,  unmoved,  the  shrieks  of  the  affrighted  martyr  as  the  flames  of  fire  were 
consuming  his  body,  but  could,  in  the  very  refinement  of  cruelty,  even  contemplate  with 
cool  philosophy  the  commission  of  such  injustice.  And  even  Melancthon  with  all  his 
exemplary  mildness  could  justify  Calvin  for  the  martyrdom  of  Servetus.  The  bold  and 
intrepid  Luther,  the  St.  Paul  of  his  time,  the  master  spirit  of  the  Reformation,  the  moral 
hero  of  Germany  and  Europe,  was  at  times  a  harsh  minister  of  his  faith.  So  was  Cranmer, 
who  sent  inoffensive  men  and  women  to  the  stake.  So  was  John  Knox.  Even  Huss,  who 
was'  burnt  to  death  by  the  Nominalists,  at  the  council  of  Constance,  had  once  been  a 
persecutor.  The  heroic  Ziska,  whose  indignant  spirit  could  not  bear  the  persecutions  of 
Huss  and  Jerome,  avenged  his  own  wrong  by  putting  the  fanatical  Beglards  to  fire  and 
sword.  Just  as  Francis  the  First,  whom  the  world  called,  and  history  records,  as  generous 
and  just,  declared  he  would  not  spare  his  own  children,  if  guilty  of  heresy,  and  permitted 
six  of  his  own  subjects  to  be  executed  in  the  most  shocking  manner  for  heresy. 

I  know,  also,  that  Protestants  in  their  time,  have  passed  many  harsh  laws,  and  I  am  not 
here  to  defend  them.  In  1699,  they  made  the  saying  of  mass  in  England  a  crime,  and 
punished  the  offenders  with  life-time  imprisonment.  Teaching  public  or  private  by  the 
Romish  partizans,  was  a  similar  offence,  and  met  with  like  punishment.  The  same  law 
compelled  the  forfeiture  of  every  Catholic  estate  to  the  nearest  protestant  kinsman,  until 
the  offender  should  redeem  it  by  professing  a  creed  which  his  judgment  and  conscience 
rejected.  The  Catholic  was  dispossessed  of  his  property,  and  made  an  outcast  and  a 
beggar.  Of  such  times  and  such  acts,  in  an  age  of  infidelity,  perhaps  it  was  true,  as  Dr. 
Johnson  said,  that  they  who  would  exclaim,  “  Popery,”  “  Popery,”  would  have  cried  “  fire,” 
“fire,”  in  the  midst  of  the  General  Deluge.  The  No  Popery  riots  of  1780,  so  graphically 
described  by  Dickens  and  others  partook  of  something  of  the  same  intolerant  spirit. 

But  let  it  be  remembered,  not  as  an  excuse  for  these  things,  but  as  a  fact,  that  the 
intolerant  spirit  of  Romish  corruption  had  provoked  such  excesses,  and  that  intolerance 
and  bigotry  have  not  ceased.  Both  were  seen  in  England  when  Queen  Caroline  com¬ 
mended,  not  Walpole  to  the  King,  but  the  King  to  Walpole.  The  minister  of  Church  and 
State,  was  greater  than  the  sovereign  of  the  realm.  Like  a  true  Jesuit.  Walpole  promised 
the  Dissenters,  there  should  be  a  day  of  deliverance  from  the  obligations  of  the  Test  Act. 
It  was  the  word  of  promise  to  the  ear,  and  broken  to  the  hope.  And  when  the  final 
impatient  cry  of  the  oppressed  went  forth :  “  When  will  the  day  of  deliverance  come,” 
the  long  delayed  answer  also  came,  “  never,”  “ never ,”  “never.” 

In  Protestant  America,  the  human  mind  has  become  more  tolerant.  I  certainly  have  no 
desire  to  recall  the  past,  except  as  it  is  wise  and  desirable  to  learn  wisdom  from  experience. 

As  Lord  Erskine  said  in  the  British  Parliament  at  a  period  not  altogether  dissimilar  to 
the  present,  I  will  not  call  up  from  the  grave  of  martyrs  all  the  blood  that  has  been  spilled 
in  England  or  elsewhere,  to  save  established  government  and  reformed  religion  from  the 
secret  villainy,  and  the  open  forces  of  the  Papists.  Let  me  add  that  if  Protestants  have 
also  been  bigoted  and  oppressive,  the  hope  that  they  will  be  so  no  more,  and  if  need  be  let 


CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


18 


the  strong  arm  of  law  reach  them  whenever  faithless  to  the  cause  of  religious  freedom. 
But  it  is  said  the  canon  law,  which  in  truth  is  Legislation  at  Rome  both  as  to  ecclesiastical 
and  civil  law,  for  all  people  and  countries  where  the  Pope  is  supreme,  has  its  exemptions. 
This  is  true  iu  Belgium,  where  the  clergy  are  esteemed  to  be  officers  of  Government,  and 
Churches  and  Church  Revenues  are  the  property  of  the  nation.  •  It  is  true  in  France, 
where  Church  property  is  held  by  the  Municipal  Power  of  the  Communes.  The  civil 
power  is  also,  upon  the  surface,  the  controlling  power  in  the  Catholic  Swiss  cantons,  and 
in  many  of  the  German  Catholic  States.  But  such  exercise  of  power  is  an  exception  to 
the  common  law,  and  the  best  possible  aspect  which  can  be  given  to  the  relations  of 
Government  is  that  of  Innocent  III,  wherein  he  compares  the  Civil  Power  to  the  Moon, 
and  the  Church  to  the  Sun.  “As,”  says  he,  “the  sun  and  the  moon  are  placed  in  the 
firmament,  the  greater  as  the  light  of  the  day,  and  the  lesser  of  the  night ;  thus  are  these 
two  powers  in  the  church  ;  the  pontifical,  which,  as  having  the  charge  of  souls,  is  the 
greater,  and  the  royal,  which  is  less,  and  to  which  the  bodies  of  men  only  are  trusted.” 
But  the  truth  is,  this  Papal  power  claims  dominion  over  both.  I  will  now  add  more 
modern  testimony  of  the  power  claimed  by  and  for  the  head  of  the  Church  of  Rome  in 
regard  to  the  civil  and  temporal  administration  of  affairs  in  Church  and  State,  and  read  a 
few  paragraphs  as  specimens  of  the  material  of  which  this  entire  edifice  is  built. 

[Mr.  Brooks  then  read  as  follows  from  the  volume  of  Brownson’s  Review  of  1853,  from 
the  article,  “  The  Two  Orders,  Spiritual  and  Temporal,”  vol.  I,  p.  48.] 

******** 

“  The  deposing  power,  there,  is  inherent  in  her  (the  Church)  as  the  spiritual  authority,  as  the  guardian  and 
judge  of  the  law,  under  which  Kings  and  Emperors  hold  their  crowns,  and  have  the  right  to  reign  ;  for,  in 
deposing  a  sovereign,  absolving  his  subjects  from  their  allegiance,  and  authorizing  them  to  proceed  to  the 
choice  of  a  new  sovereign,  she  does  but  apply  the  law  of  Christ  to  a  particular  case,  and  judicially  declares 
what  is  already  true  by  that  law.  She  only  declares  that  the  forfeiture  has  occurred,  and  that  the  subjects 
are  released  from  their  oaths  of  fidelity,  who  are  already  released  by  the  law  of  God.” 

******** 

“  The  Pope  has  the  right  to  pronounce  sentence  of  deposition  against  any  sovereign,  when  required  by  the 
good  of  the  spiritual  order.” — [p.  48.] 

******** 

“  The  power  she  (the  Church)  exercised  over  sovereigns  in  the  middle  ages  was  not  a  usurpation,  was  not 
derived  from  the  concession  of  Princes,  or  the  consent  of  all  people,  but  was,  and  is,  hers  by  divine  right ;  and 
who  so  resists  it,  rebels  against  the  King  of  Kings  and  Lord  of  Lords.  This  is  the  ground  on  which  we  defend 
the  power  exercised  over  sovereigns,  by  Pope  and  council,  in  the  middle  ages.” — [p.  47.] 

******** 

“  For  every  Catholic,  at  least,  the  Church  is  the  supreme  judge  of  the  limits  and  extent  of  her  own  powers. 
She  can  be  judged  by  no  one,  and  this  of  itself  implies  her  absolute  supremacy,  and  that  the  temporal  order 
must  receive  its  law,  at  least  its  interpretation  from  her.  So  she  also  asserted  by  the  mouth  of  all  her  holy 
Doctors,  her  councils,  and  her  Sovereign  Pontiffs.” — [p.  47.] 

******** 

“  Whenever  the  occasion  occurred,  she  asserted  her  power,  not  in  empty  words  only,  but  in  deeds,  to  judge 
sovereigns,  kings,  and  Caesars,  to  bestow  or  take  away  crowns,  to  depose  ungodly  rulers,  and  to  absolve  their 
subjects  from  their  oath  of  allegiance.” — [p.  54.] 

**■**■**•*■* 

“  She  (the  Church)  bears,  by  divine  right,  both  swords  ;  but  she  exercises  the  temperal  sword  by  the  hand 
of  the  Prince  or  Magistrate.  The  temporal  sovereign  holds  it  subject  to  her  order,  to  be  exercised  in  her 
service,  under  her  direction.” — [p.  60.] 

******** 

“  When,  then,  we  find  a  sovereign  Pontiff  judging,  condemning,  and  deposing  a  secular  Prince,  releasing 
his  subjects  from  their  obligation  to  obey  him,  and  authorizing  them  to  choose  another  King,  we  may  regret 
the  necessity  for  such  extreme  measures  on  the  part  of  the  Pontiff,  but  we  see  in  them  only  the  bold  and 
decided  exercise  of  the  legitimate  authority  of  the  spiritual  and  the  temporal;  and,  instead  of  blushing  for 
the  chief  of  our  religion,  or  joining  our  voice  to  swell  the  clamor  against  him,  we  thank  him  with  our  whole 
heart  for  his  fidelity  to  Christ;  and  we  give  him  the  highest  honor  that  we  can  give  to  a  true  servant  of  God 
and  benefactor  of  mankind.” — [p.  611.] 

******** 

“  A  sovereign  Pontiff,  successor  of  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  Vicar  of  God  on  earth,  if,  even  through  fear 
of  the  secular  power,  whether  royal  or  popular  in  its  constitution,  I  forget  to  assert  their  rights  as  supreme 
chief  under  Christ,  my  services,  of  the  whole  spiritual  order,  and  as  such  supreme  alike  in  spirituals  and  in 
temporals,  let  my  right  hand  forget  her  cunning,  and  my  tongue  cleave  to  the  roof  of  my  mouth.” — [p.  621.] 
******** 

From  article  “  The  Spiritual  not  for  the  Temporal,”  April,  1S53  (Brownson’s  Review). 

I  am  the  more  careful  to  read  these  extracts  from  the  official  Book,  which  I  find  in  the 
State  library,  because  of  the  bold  denial  of  Mr.  Brownson  to  the  authenticity  of  a  para¬ 
graph,  less  offensive  than  any  one  of  these,  credited  to  him  by  my  friend  from  the  31st 
(Mr.  Putnam),  and  whose  lead  I  am  very  happy  to  follow  in  his  honest  effort  to  correct  a 
public  abuse. 

Let  me  now  link  the  chain  of  evidence  as  to  the  interference  of  this  huge  power  in  mat¬ 
ters  alien  to  all  free  religious  worship. 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN.  19 


[Mr.  Brooks  then  read  the  following  extracts  :] 

“  Blaeius,  in  his  book,  De  Rom.  Eccles.  Dignitate ,  pp.  84,  83,  84,  says :  1  Unicus  Dei,  Ac.  The  Pope  is  the 
only  Vicar  of  God,  his  power  is  over  all  the  world,  Pagan  as  well  as  Christian;  the  only  Vicar  of  God  who 
has  supreme  power  and  empire  over  all  kings  and  princes  of  the  earth.’ 

“  Bzovius,  in  his  book,  De  Rom.  Pontiff  cap.  46,  p.  621,  ‘  Papa  summan,  Ac.  The  Pope  has  supreme  power 
even  over  kings  and  Christian  princes,  who  may  correct  them,  and  remove  them  from  office,  and  in  their 
place  put  in  others.’  'See  Domoulin’s  Papal  Usurpations ,  p.  14,  Ac.,  folio. 

“  Mancinus,  De  jure  princip.  Bom.,  lib.  3,  cap.  i.,  2,  says :  1  Papa,  Ac.  The  Pope  is  lord  of  the  whole 
world,  The  Pope,  as  Pope,  has  temporal  power;  his  temporal  power  is  most  eminent.  All  other  powers 
depend  on  the  Pope.’ 

“  Moscovius,  De  Majestat.  Eccles.  Misit.,  lib.  i.  cap.  8,  says:  ‘  Pontifex,  Ac.  The  Pope  is  universal  judge : 
he  is  king  of  kings ,  and  lord  of  lords.  God’s  tribunal  and  the  Pope’s  tribunal  are  the  same.  Ali  other 
powers  are  his  subjects.’  See  also  Phithou,  Corpus.  Jur.  Canon.,  29  Decret.  Titul.  7,  cap.  3 ;  and  Binii  Con¬ 
cilia,  ix.,  54. 

“Scioppius,  in  his  Eccles.  Jacob.  Mag.  Brit.  Beg.  Oppos .,  cap.  138, 139, 241, says:  *  Catholic!  non  tantum, 
Ac.  Catholics  believe  the  Pope’s  power  to  be  not  only  ministerial ,  but  imperial,  and  supreme,  so  that  he 
has  the  right  to  direct  and  compel,  with  the  power  of  life  and  death.’ 

“  Maynardus,  in  his  book  De  Privileg.  Eccles.  artic.  5,  sect.  19  and  21 ;  artic.  6,  sect.  1  and  11 ;  artic.  13, 
sect.  19,  says,  ‘  Magistrates  are  the  Pope’s  subjects.’  1  The  Pope  has  power  in  the  whole  world,  in  temporals 
and  spirituals.’  1  Statutes  made  by  laymen  do  not  bind  the  clergy.’ 

“  Turrecrementa,  Card  Ad.  can.  alius.  3,  caus.  15;  Quest.  6,  and  in  his  book  De  Eccles.,  lib.  ii.  cap. 
14,  says,  1  Papa  potest.  Ac.  The  Pope  can  depose  emperors  and  kings  ;  he  may  lawfully  absolve  subjects 
from  their  oath  of  allegiance.  If  the  king  (or  chief  magistrate)  be  manifestly  a  heretic  ;’  that  is,  a  Protest¬ 
ant  ;  ‘  the  church  may  depose  him.’ 

“  The  sum  of  this  argument  is  this :  When  the  good  of  the  Roman  Church  requires  it  (and  the  Pope  is  the 
judge  of  that),  ‘  the  Pontiff  can  enact  civil  laws  for  a  people ;  he  can  confirm  them,  and  abrogate  them  at  his 
will,  as  supreme  spiritual  Prince ;  he  can  erect  kingdoms  ;  transfer  thrones,  depose  magistrates,  kings,  and 
emperors,  and,  by  divine  right,  he  can  rescind  all  obligations  of  citizens  to  their  government,  and  all  allegi¬ 
ance  of  a  people  to  their  chief  magistrate.’ 

“  The  glossa  of  John  Semeca,  in  Gratian,  asks,  ‘  For  what  sins  may  the  emperor  (or  a  magistrate)  be  de¬ 
posed  ?’  The  answer  is  this :  ‘  Pro  quolibet,  Ac. ;  for  any  sin,  if  he  be  incorrigible,  and  not  only  for  his  sins, 
but  if  he  do  unprofitably  manage  his  regal  power.’  See  Glossa.  ad  Can.  Si  papa  6,  Dist.  40.  The  power  of 
judging  when  a  magistrate  does  ‘  manage  his  civil  power  unprofitably,’  is  also  vested  in  the  Pope.  See  Can. 
Allius,  2,  Cap.  15,  Ques.  5.  Demoulin,  p.  21.  Pope  Zachary  acted  according  to  the  letter  of  this  law,  when 
he  deposed  the  King  of  France. 

“By  Canon  law  the  Pope  is  invested  with  power  to  annul  any  civil  law  that  may  injure  the  papal  interests. 
Here  is  the  law :  Corpus.  Jur.  Canon,  lib.  vi.  Decretal,  cap.  9  :  ‘Non  valeat,  Ac.  All  laws  by  which  the 
office  of  a  heresy  detecter  is  obstructed,  or  retarded,  are  null  and  void.’ 

“  Again,  cap.  19,  p.  142.  ‘  Bona,  Ac.  The  goods  of  heretics  are  rightfully  confiscated.’  ” 

Thus  in  Austria,  Spain,  or  in  Mexico,  whatever  appeal  the  oppressed  may  make  to  the 
civil  law,  it  is  all  in  vain.  The  ghostly  tribunal  confiscates  his  goods  ;  and  not  only  is  the 
father,  and  protector  of  a  family,  torn  away  by  the  spiritual  ruffians,  but  every  article  of 
property,  and  even  the  last  morsel  of  food,  are  abstracted  from  the  mother,  and  her  weep¬ 
ing  children. 

Again,  cap.  6,  p.  135  :  Ordinarii,  &c.  Prelates,  vicars-general,  and  their  delegates,  and 
inquisitors,  may  enforce  persons,  who  have  secular  jurisdiction  to  execute  their  sentence 
upon  heretics..  Thus,  according  to  the  very  letter  of  the  Canon  law,  “priests  are  consti¬ 
tuted  judges  in  civil  matters,  and  kings  and  magistrates  are  the  Pope’s  hangmen !’  ” 

The  following  I  copy  from  the  famous  Decretal  of  Pope  Gregory  IX,  lib.  V,  Titul.  7, 
cap.  13  : 

“  Moneantur,  Ac.  Let  the  secular  powers  be  admonished  and  induced,  and,  if  necessary,  let  them  be  com¬ 
pelled  by  church  censures,  that,  as  they  desire  to  be  esteemed  among  the  faithful,  so  for  the  defence  of  the 
faith,  they  publicly  take  an  oath,  that  from  the  lands  under  their  jurisdictions,  they  will,  with  all  their  might, 
study  to  exterminate  all  heretics  denounced  by  the  church,  Ac.” 

In  section  sixth,  the  Pope  utters  his  curse  “on  all  civil  powers  who  impose  new  taxes 
without  the  consent  of  the  Roman  court.” 

In  the  15th  section  he  curses. magistrates,  who  take  away  the  jurisdiction  of  all  benefices, 
and  tithes,  or  other  spiritual  causes,  from  the  cognizance  of  the  court  of  Rome.  Hence, 
if  our  courts  take  up  a  cause  of  quarrel  between  the  priests  or  laymen,  about  moneys  due 
to  '•'■  the  church,"  or  “any  spiritual  property,"  instead  of  referring  it  simply  to  the 
foreign  judge,  they  come  under  the  papal  curse. 

In  the  17th,  he  curses  all  who  hinder  priests  and  ecclesiastics  from  exerting  their  ghostly 
jurisdiction,  or  who  shall  appeal  to  civil  courts  for  redress,  “to  procure  prohibitions  and 
penal  mandates  against  these  priestly  courts,  &c.” 

In  the  24th,  he  curses  bishop  and  priest,  who  shall  give  absolution  to  any  under  these 
dooms,  “in  face  of  these  presents,”  and  he  declares  that  he  will  proceed  to  severe  spiritual 
and  temporal  punishments,  as  he  shall  think  most  convenient. 

If  the  use  of  temporal  power  and  temporal  interference  in  State  and  Church,  or  the 
combination  of  Church  and  State  are  still  denied,  it  is  a  brazen  contradiction  of  a  well 
authenticated  truth.  Political  events  in  every  country  are  subjects  of  report  from  every 
diocese  at  least  once  a  year.  Sardinia  to-day  is  the  victim  of  Papal  oppression.  Victor 
Manuel,  the  young  King  there,  is  mocked  in  his  calamities,  though  losing  mother  and  wife 


CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


20 


in  the  space  of  eight  days,  by  the  whole  order  of  Jesuits.  The  Pope  censuies  him  for 
favoriug  religious  toleration,  and  for  not  looking  with  a  more  kindly  spirit  upon  the  490 
convents,  spread  like  cells  in  a  honey  comb,  all  over  that  small  kingdom,  and  as  full  of 
priests  as  the  hive  is  full  of  bees.  King  and  country  are  given  over  by  the  Pope  for  de¬ 
claring  all  men  equal  before  God,  under  the  civil  law. 

Do  you  ask  for  additional  evidence  of  Papal  Supremacy  or  dominion  with  the  govern¬ 
ments  of  the  earth  ?  Let  me  add,  to  what  I  have  said,  the  words  of  the' great  Machiavelli, 
he  who  was  strangled  for  uttering  the  truth,  and  for  his  endeavors  to  give  deliverance  - 
to  Florence,  “  If  Italy ,”  says  he,  “  has  always  been  the  prey,  not  only  of  barbarians, 
but  also  of  any  foreign  power  willing  to  attack  it,  we  Italians  are  indebted  for  it  to 
the  Popes  alone.”  Who,  asked  a  brave  man  in  the  Sardinian  Parliament  the  last  month, 
invited  Pepin  to  Italy  ?  Stephen  II.  Who  called  Charlemagne  ?  Adrian  I.  Arnotf,  the 
German,  the  two  Othos,  Henry  II,  Conrad  the  Salic,  Charles  d’Anjou,  were  called  by  the 
Popes.  French,  Saxons,  Swedes,  Spaniards,  Germans,  Swiss,  Hungarians,  and  even 
Turks,  all  of  them  were  called  to  Italy  by  Pontiffs  of  Rome.  Since  the  revolution  of 
1848,  Austrians.  Neapolitans,  Spaniards  and  French  have  all  been  the  guardians  of 
Italian  tyranny,  while  Italians  have  been  watched  and  hunted,  exiled  and  imprisoned, 
condemned  and  executed. 

Look  at  Italy  now,  as  seen  in  what  are  called  the  States  of  the  Church.  A  little  while 
since,  upon  an  area  of  27,280  square  miles,  and  with  a  population  of  less  than  3,000,000  peo¬ 
ple,  there  were  53,000  Priests,  1,825  Monasteries,  612  Nunneries,  protected  not  by  a  Roman, 
but  by  a  Swiss  soldiery  of  four  or  live  thousand  men.  One  day  it  is  an  Austrian  army  in 
command  ;  another,  Swiss  hirelings,  another,  Neapolitan  soldiers,  and  to-day  it  is  the  pro¬ 
tection  of  French  bayonets.  Look  even  now  at  the  city  of  Rome,  with  its  Chapel  of  the 
Madonna  in  the  Church  of  St.  Augustin,  hung  with  dirks  and  knives  (as  another  chapel 
there  is  hung  with  human  bones,  formed  into  chandeliers  and  curious  devices),  given  up 
on  condition  of  pardon  and  absolution  for  all  past  offences. 

The  little  government  of  Sardinia,  with  a  population  of  five  millions  of  people,  has  604 
religious  societies  or  houses,  and  these  convents,  with  the  church,  possess  a  domain  of 
property  valued  at  eighty-nine  millions  of  dollars !  It  is  proposed  to  suppress  a  few 
religious  orders  of  the  most  obnoxious  character,  but  none  of  those  whose  duty  it  is  to 
administer  to  the  sick,  or  to  preach  or  teach.  But  the  Pope  threatens  his  Bull  of  Excom¬ 
munication,  and  the  Sardinian  Bishops  threaten  their  anathemas.  No  wonder,  for  their  . 
annual  incomes  are  $25,000  to  the  Archbishop  of  Turin,  $21,000  to  the  Archbishop  of 
Monota,  more  than  $20,000  to  the  Archbishop  of  Sardinia  and  Oristano,  $19,000  to  him  of 
Mercelli,  while  the  poor  curates,  who  perform  the  really  hard  services  of  the  Church, 
receive  only  $95  a  year  ! 

In  a  single  dey  in  Rome,  under  French  domination,  there  have  been  120  assassinations 
in  twenty-four  hours,  and  with  a  population  of  only  180,000  people  ! 

Compare  this  Papal  city  (Rome)  with  any  in  this  Protestant  land.  Compare  any  of 
the  Catholic  cities  of  Europe  and  South  America  with  the  Protestant'  cities  of  Europe 
and  on  this  continent.  Behold  the  city  of  Naples  and  the  city  of  Brotherly  Love  ?  The 
city  of  Mexico  and  the  city  of  Boston !  The  city  of  Rome,  with  its  seven  hills,  and  all 
its  glorious  classic  history,  and  little  Manhattan  Island,  which  makes  up  our  own  imperial 
city  !  Contrast  the  Empire  of  Rome,  with  the  little  island  of  Britain.  Picture  the  time 
when  the  mightiest  of  the  Cmsars  led  the  Roman  army  against  the  barbarian  Britons. 
What  is  Rome  now,  and  what  is  Britain  now  ?  And  what  has  wrought  these  stupendous 
changes?  I  will  tell  you.  England  is  Protestant,  and  therein  lies  her  gigantic  strength. 
America  is  Protestant,  and  therein  is  the  chief  source  of  her  power.  Italy  is  Priestridden, 
and  that  is  the  canker-worm  that  has  eaten  out  her  very  witals.  We  owe  our  govern¬ 
ment,  our  liberty,  our  prosperity,  mainly  to  our  Protestant  religion.  If  evidence  was  yet 
needed  of  Papal  domination  in  matters  of  civil  government,  look  at  Switzerland.  Her 
crags,  and  peaks,  and  ‘  cloud-capped  towers,’  are  all  symbols  of  liberty,  but  there,  only 
nine  years  ago,  the  Holy  See  became  the  instrument  of  civil  war,  and  colleges  and  con¬ 
vents,  even  the  convents  of  Nuns,  were  filled  with  arms  which  were  used  to  deluge  ihc 
land  of  William  Tell  with  fraternal  blood.  The  little  Republic  of  San  Marino  has  been 
haunted  by  the  same  fatal  power,  and  was  only  saved  from  Roman  cupidity  a  few 
months  since,  by  the  merciful  interposition  of  the  French.  Stand  upon  the  Rialto  of 
Venice,  and  recall  the  days  when  Giulius  II,  Paul  the  V  and  Clement  the  V,  let  loose  the 
dogs  of  war  upon  that  beautiful  city  of  the  sea. 

The  Romish  Censorship  of  the  Press,  and  its  hostility  to  works  of  a  liberal  character, 
show  the  anti-republican  character  of  this  illiberal  power.  Though  it  may  sometimes  be 
done,  it  is  not  lawful  to  read  Bacon,  Locke,  Hobbes,  Kant,  Des  Cartes,  Grotius,  Machia- 
yelli,  Montesquieu,  in  books  of  philosophy  ;  Bufton,  Copernicus,  Gall,  Cuvier,  D’Alembert, 
in  science  ;  Milton,  Lafontaine,  Ariosto,  Victor  Hugo,  in  poetry  and  prose;  nor  Hume, 
Gibbon,  Roberston  and  Botta,  in  history.  The  works  of  our  own  Thomas  Jefferson,  are 
also  named  among  the  books  which  it  is  not  lawful  to  read.  Eleven  or  twelve  years  ago, 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN.  21 


October  11,  1843,  Daniel  O'Connell,  in  addressing  his  countrymen,  in  Dublin,  at  the  Corn 
Exchange,  said  :  “  You  should  do  all  in  your  power  to  carry  oat  the  pious  intentions  of 
His  Holiness,  the  Pope.  Where  you  have  the  electoral  franchise ,  give  your  votes  to 
none  but  those  who  will  assist  you  in  so  holy  a  struggle.” 

I  have  given  in  another  speech,  the  time  and  manner,  and  place,  where  Bishop  Hughes 
harangued  the  populace  “  to  carry  out  the  pious  intentions  of  the  Pope.” 

And  let  me  say  before  closing,  and  as  my  creed,  that  church  property  belongs  to  the 
worshippers  and  not  to  the  clergy.  It  would  be  a  monstrous  perversion  of  religious 
liberty  to  admit  that  priests  or  bishops  alone  can  own  or  control  the  temporalities  of  the 
church. 

The  clergy  of  the  church  of  Rome  derived  their  power  to  hold  church  property  from 
the  civil  law^  and  if  the  civil  law  originated  the  power,  cannot  the  civil  law'  restore  to 
itself  a  power  of  its  own  creation?  I  speak  this  for  Europe  and  not  the  United  States. 
Constantine  the  Great,  great  only  in  his  sins,  for  he  murdered  his  own  wife,  son,  brother, 
and  brother-in-law,  received  his  title  of  Great  because  he  provided  by  a  civil  law,  still 
held  sacred,  that  temporal  power  to  the  See  of  Rome,  which  made  Dante  sing,  in  the  very 
sadness  of  Italian  song,  and  in  language  in  entire  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  Petrarch, 
Boccacio,  and  Cola  de  Rienzi,  always  opposed  to  the  papal  theocracy  : 

“  0  Constantin  di  quanto  mat  fa  matre, 

Non  la  tua  conversion,  ma  quella  dole , 

Che  da  teprese  ilprimo  ricco  patre  ?”* 

The  canon  law  of  the  Baltimore  ordinance  of  1852  is  a  step  backward  towards  the  dark 
ages.  That  ordinance  is  not  only  at  war  with  the  spirit  of  the  bill  before  us,  with  the 
Revised  Statutes  and  the  State  Constitution,  but  repugnant  to  the  spirit  of  civil  and 
religious  freedom.  The  anathemas  of  the  Council  of  Trent  are  pronounced  against  all, 
even  the  clergy,  who  will  not  resist,  even  the  State  itself,  should  the  State  attempt  to  give 
laymen,  or  anybody  but  priests  and  bishops,  the  control  of  church  property.  I  shall  read 
from  this  16th  Canon  of  the  Council  of  Baltimore,  held  in  1852,  beginning  with  the 
words  :  “  Quoniam  quae  Deo  ” — and  from  the  fourth  Canon  of  the  Ordinance  of  1849,  to 
show  how  far,  in  this  land,  a  power  emanating  from  Rome,  undertakes  to  exercise  influence 
over  church  property.  Nor  shall  it  be  said  that  this  Canon  Law  is  dead,  obsolete  or  with¬ 
out  effect.  The  St.  Louis  Church  in  Buffalo  presents  a  case  in  point,  where  an  attempt 
has  been  made  to  enforce  this  power.  The  Rochester  church  case,  cited  by  the  Senator 
from  the  27th  (Mr.  Bishop),  is  another  case  in  point,  for  there  the  major  curse  of  excom¬ 
munication  was  not  only  pronounced  against  all  Catholics  who  would  not  give  the  Bishop 
control  of  church  property,  but  the  persons  resisting  this  clerical  usurpation  were 
assaulted  and  driven  by  brute  force,  and  upon  the  Sabbath,  from  the  very  threshold  of 
the  church  which  they  had  contributed  to  erect  as  a  house  for  their  own  worship,  and  all 
this  because  they  would  not  make  over  this  church  property  to  the  Bishop. 

Let  me  remark  here  that  the  Senator  from  the  11th  (Mr.  Crosby),  was  mistaken  in  what 
he  said  of  Catholic  Church  property  in  the  city  of  New  York,  with  an  exception  or  two, 
and  St.  Peter’s  Church  for  one.  The  churches  there,  as  elsewhere,  are  held  iu  the  name 
of  the  Bishop,  and  not  in  the  name  of  the  Trustees.  In  the  case  of  St.  Peter's  Church, 
there  are  circumstances,  I  am  told,  connected  with  the  ownership  of  the  church,  which 
required  the  trust  to  be  thus  held.  But  even  there  the  Bishop  sits  like  a  despot  on  his 
throne,  and  the  master  of  the  Trustees.  I  find  in  the  Register's  office  no  conveyance  by- 
St.  Peter's  Church  of  their  property  in  Barclay  street,  but  the  following  conveyance  is  there  : 

“James  It.  Bailey  and  James  B.  Nicholson,  new  Trustees  appointed  by  the  Court,  in  place  of  Charles  C.  Pyce, 

survivor  and  assignee  of  St.  Peter’s  Church :  To 

The  Trustees  of  St.  Patrick’s  Cathedral  (without  warning  such  Trustees).  This  conveyance  purports  to  be 
made  by  the  order  of  the  Court,  in  a  suit  brought  for  partition  of  property,  and  conveys  to  the  Trustees  of 
St.  Patrick's  Cathedral  thirty-two  lots  of  ground  in  50th  and  51st  streets,  iu  two  parcels,  one  350  feet  by  210 
feet  10  inches,  and  the  other  105  by  So  feet.” 

I  have  taken  occasion  during  a  visit  of  a  day  in  New  York  to  secure  references,  taken 
from  the  Register’s  office  there  of  the  amount  of  property  held  by  John  Hughes  fti  that 
city.  I  suppose  its  value  to  he  in  New  York  alone,  not  much  short  of  five  millions  of 
dollars.  So  far  from  this  property  being  held,  when  in  Churches,  by  Trustees  there  are 
numerous  transfers  from  Trustees  to  John  Hughes  !  Beginning  with  February  1842,  and 
continuing  through  1854,  a  friend  of  mine  copied  fifty-eight  entries  of  as  many 
distinct  parcels  of  property  made  in  the  name  of  and  for  John  Hughes,  all  iu  the  space 
of  twelve  years! — not  to  John  Hughes,  Bishop,  nor  to  John  Hughes,  Arch  Bishop,  nor  to 
John  Hughes,  as  Trustee  for  the  great  Roman  Catholic  Church,  but  to  plain  John  Hughes, 

*  “  O  Constantine  1  how  much  evil  originated,  not  from  thy  conversion,  but  from  that  grant  from  thee  to 
the  first  Pope  whom  you  made  rich. 


2 


CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


22 


in  his  own  propria  persona.  Some  of  these  parcels  of  property  cover  whole  squares  of 
land  and  nearly  all  of  them  are  of  great  value.  The  rule  of  that  church  is  never  to  part 
with  property,  and  to  receive  all  that  can  be  purchased.  What  is  true  of  New  York  city  is 
true  of  the  state,  and  fifteen  or  twenty  eases  of  property  assigned  to  Bishop  John  Timon 
were  named  by  the  Senator  from  Monroe. 

[To  those  who  were  curious  in  such  matters,  Mr.  Brooks  exhibited  copies  of  the  number, 
book  and  page  of  these  several  entries  in  the  city  of  New  York  in  behalf  of  John  Hughes.] 

I  now  read  from  the  two  Baltimore  papal  ordinances  of  1S49  and  1852,  from  translations, 
which  in  spirit  aud  substance,  I  believe  to  be  correct : 


“  The  fathers  decree  that  all  churches  and  other  ecclesiastical  property,  acquired  by  gifts  or  through  the 
obligations  cf  the  faithful,  designed  to  be  expended  for  charitable  or  religious  uses  belong  to  the  ordinary 
(Bishop),  unless  it  appears  and  is  certified  in  writing,  that  the  same  was  given  for  the  use  of  some  religious 
order  or  congregation  of  priests.” — Translated  from  the  Law  of  1S49. 

“  Whereas,  the  things  given  to  God  for  the  use  of  divine  warship  and  works  of  charity  come  under  the 
control  of  the  church,  whose  duty  it  is  to  see  that  the  pious  will  of  the  donors  be  faithfully  executed,  and 
whereas,  the  sacred  Canons  have  often  defended  them  against  the  usurpations  of  laymen,  we  strictly  forbid 
the  interference  of  laymen  (laici),  in  the  administration  of  those  things  without  the  free  consent  of  Bishops 
(Episcopalii).  Hence,  when  not  called  to  this  by  the  Bishop  they  usurp  the  powers  to  use  this  property  or 
in  any  manner  frustrate  or  defraud  the  will  of  the  donors,  or  if  they  try  to  wrest  from  the  Bishop’s  hands,  the 
things  committed  to  his  trust  and  care,  even  by  means  of  the  State,  we  define  and  declare  they  fall  ipso 
facto ,  under  the  punishment  inflicted  by  the  fathers  of  the  council  of  Trent  (Section  23,  chapter  11,  Be 
Reformatione),  on  the  usurpers  of  ecclesiastical  property.” — Translated  from  the  Laic  o/l$52.) 


The  section  from  the  council  of  Trent  above  referred  to  begins,  si  quid  clericorum.  &c., 
and  anathematises  all  clerical  and  laical  persons,  ‘"be  they  even  Emperors  or  Kings,"  who 
do  not  concentrate  all  church  property  in  the  head  of  the  church.  Rents,  rights,  even 
those  held  in  fee  or  under  leases,  the  fruits,  emoluments,  or  any  sources  of  reward  whatso¬ 
ever,  belonging  to  any  church  or  to  any  benefice,  whether  secular  or  regular,”  &c  ,  &c., 
are  properties  over  which  supreme  power  is  claimed. 

The  Papal  power  may  and  does  absolve  allegiance  to  a  lawful  sovereign,  by  the  w  ill  of 
one  man.  It  claims  power  over  the  civil  arm  as  well  as  over  the  religious  life. 

It  was  a  question  of  Church  Property,  which  brought  Bedim  to  the  United  States.  It 
was  a  question  of  Property  which  prompted  the  ordinances  I  have  read  from  Baltimore. 
The  seven  millions  of  French  citizens  who  voted  to  perpetuate  the  French  dynasty,  did  so 
with  French  bayonets  on  one  side  of  the  ballot  box  and  French  Priests  on  the  other,  and 
the  compensation  was  the  continuance  of  the  French  army  in  Italy,  to  protect  the  See  of 
Rome.  To-day,  an  American  citizen  and  a  Bishop,  a  favorite  of  the  Diocese  at  Detroit, 
over  which  he  long  presided,  is  immured  in  some  European  prison  or  Monastery,  for  no 
crime  to  the  country  where  he  lived,  and  for  no  offence  to  the  church  where  he  officiated. 
Here  are  subjects,  political  and  temporal,  combined  with  church  government. 

Sir,  it  is  time  to  avert  this  monstrous  usurpation,  not  by  force,  but  by  a  law  which  shall 
know  no  distinctions  of  sects  in  the  control  of  church  property,  either  as  to  devisements, 
ownerships  or  investments.  In  civil  matters,  or  in  church  temporalities,  growing  out  of 
trusts,  there  must  be  no  sovereignty  in  Roman  Pontiffs  or  in  the  John  Timons  and  John 
Hughes’  “  of  the  Province  of  New  York.”  We  were  a  Province  once,  not  of  a  Pope,  but 
of  au  Empire.  Thank  God,  we  are  rid  of  that  tyranny  now.  It  may  exist  in  Austria, 
along  the  Danube,  with  Naples  and  other  Italian  States,  along  the  Mediterranean  and  in 
unhappy  Ireland.  You  see  the  system  and  its  bitter  fruits  iu  those  countries,  and  you  see 
almost  the  antipodes  of  it  in  Lutheran  Germany  and  Norway,  in  Presbyterian  Scotland 
and  Episcopalian  England. 

Italy  pictures  the  whole  system  of  superstition  and  oppression  within  her  own  borders. 
The  streams  of  fire  which  there  and  in  Sicily,  in  times  past,  rolled  like  a  flood  over  the 
devoted  cities  of  Catania,  Pompeii  and  Herculaneum,  are  typical  of  the  moral  desolation 
of  such  Governments.  There  is  beauty  upon  the  surface,  but  Etua  and  Vesuvius,  with  their 
subterranean  fires,  are  consuming  all  within.  The  great  heart  of  the  nation  is  filled  with 
dead  men’s  bones  and  all  uucleanness. 

I  will  not  reproduce  the  great  past  in  the  history  of  Rome  and  of  Italy.  There  are 
memorials  there,  which  though  faded  aud  dwarfed  can  never  die. 

“  ’Tirere  long  to  tell,  and  sad  to  trace 
Each  step  from  splendor  to  disgrace.” 

I  see  Italy,  beautiful  even  in  her  misfortunes,  with  the  same  soft  blue  and  golden  skies  as 
in  the  days  of  Virgil,  Petrarch,  Horace  and  Dante — still  the  land  of  the  pencil  and  song, 
as  fruitful,  too,  in  her  history  as  in  her  luxuriant  gardens.  First  in  arts  aud  first  in  arms, 
she  is  now  indeed  but  “the  Niobe  of  nations  ”  and  “  the  dead  mother  of  lone  empires.” 
But  Rome  may  rise  again,  when,  and  only  when,  an  intelligent  people  shall  rule  in  the 
palace  of  th*e  Caisars,  as  the  Pontiff  rules  in  the  Church.  She  must  cast  off  that  moral 
malaria  which  is  more  infectious  to  the  miud  and  heart  of  the  State  than  the  pestilent 
atmosphere  of  a  thousand  Pontine  marshes.  v 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN.  23 


From  Italy  and  from  the  old  world  let  our  land  and  continent  learn  wisdom.  History, 
even  in  its  errors,  like  a  lighthouse  on  the  rock,  or  the  North  Star  over  a  stormy  ocean,  is 
the  moral  compass  which,  true  as  the  needle  to  the  pole,  points  to  a  haven  of  safety, 
Behold  what  this  Protestant  land  has  already  done  for  the  emigrants  and  exiles  of  the  old 
world  !  Let  those  who  come  from  the  desolated  homes  of  their  childhood,  poor  in  purse, 
crushed  in  spirit,  condemned  to  exile,  it  may  be,  for  indulging  in  an  aspiration  for  civil 
and  religious  freedom,  ask  themselves  what  sort  of  alchemy  it  is  which  has  made 
America  a  more  prosperous  nation  within  the  single  lifetime  of  some  one  citizen,  born 
upon  the  soil,  than  any  European  nation  has  become  through  long  centuries  of  time. 
More  than  to  anything  else,  in  my  judgment,  we  owe  this  preeminent  success  to  our  Pro¬ 
testant  religion."  “  We  the  people  of  the  State  of  New  York,”  in  the  language  of  our  own 
Constitution,  “  are  grateful  to  Almighty  God  for  our  freedom,  for  the  free  exercise  and 
enjoyment  of  religious  profession  and  worship,”  for  all  that  perfect  independence,  liberty 
and  equality  of  right,  which  can  exist  in  no  government  not  founded  upon  a  true 
Protestant  faith. 

Through  the  past  we  can  learn  the  pathway  of  coming  duty,  and  behold  what  it  is 
which  constitutes  the  true  glory  of  a  Republican  State  and  Government.  In  the  future 
for  America,  and  I  trust  for  all  the  world,  there  is  hope. 

“  The  world  is  all  before  us  where  to  choose 
Our  place  of  rest  and  Providence  our  guide,” 


- - 

SENATOR  BROOKS,  ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES,  AND  A  CHANCE  TOR  A 
GREAT  PUBLIC  LIBRARY. 

To  the  Editors  of  the  Courier  and  Enquirer. 

When  an  individual  who  never  expected  much  from  the  favors  of  fortune,  finds  himself 
unexpectedly  and  all  at  once  the  proprietor  of  immense  wealth,  it  is,  I  trust,  not  unbe¬ 
coming  in  him  to  expend  a  portion  of  it  in  promoting  the  welfare  of  his  countrymen  by 
multiplying  the  opportunities  for  acquiring  knowledge.  Neither  should  feelings  of  grati¬ 
tude  be  altogether  disregarded  in  such  expenditure  ;  and  as  I  am  mainly  indebted  to  the 
Hon.  Erastus  Brooks  for  the  immense  fortune  which  I  now  possess,  I  hope  his  modesty  will 
permit  him  to  share  with  me  in  the  immortality  which  will  result  to  its  founder  from  the 
magnificence  and  perpetuity  of  the  monument,  “  otra  perrenius,’’  which  is  to  commemo¬ 
rate  my  princely  fortune,  and  his  sagacity  in  finding  out  its  existence.  In  a  speech 
delivered  by  Mr.  Senator  Brooks  before  that  branch  of  our  Legislature  which  has  been  so 
enlightened  by  the  flashing  evidences  of  his  erudition,  and  encouraged  to  habits  of  indus¬ 
try  by  his  pains-taking  search  after  the  titles  of  property  vested  in  me,  he  has  made 
known  that  my  property  in  the  city  of  New  York  alone,  is  not  much  short  of  five  millions 
of  dollars.  His  colleagues  must  have  been  as  much  edified  as  I  have  been  surprised  at 
this  announcement.  Still  it  appears  that  Mr.  Senator  Brooks,  like  an  honorable  man, 
who  "wouldn’t  deceive,  furnished  evidences  from  the  records  of  property  in  New  York  to. 
sustain  his  senatorial  statement  ;  for  towards  the  close  of  his  speech  he  has  inserted  in 
brackets  the  following  words  : 

“  To  those  who  were  curious  in  such  matters,  Mr.  Brooks  exhibited  to  the  Senate  the  number,  book  and 
page  of  those  several  entries  in  the  city  of  New  York  in  behalf  of  John  Hughes.” 

So  it  seems  certain,  on  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Brooks,  that  my  property  in  this  city  alone 
is  not  much  short  of  five  millions  of  dollars.  Out  of  the  city  it  should  be  proportionably 
great,  but  of  its  extent  Mr.  Brooks  has  not  given  us  any  information.  Like  a  strictly  con¬ 
scientious  man,  he  testifies  to  only  what  he  knows.  The  amount  in  his  estimate  would  be 
five  millions  ;  but  in  order  to  avoid  the  possibility  of  error  he  leaves  a  little  margin,  and 
declares  it  not  much  short  of  that  amount.  The  paper  called  the  “  Presbyterian”  sets  it 
down  at  twenty-five  millions  of  dollars,  and  I  know  not  by  what  right  Mr.  Brooks  should 
have  diminished  the  amount  of  my  property,  by  striking  out  the  surplus  twenty  millions, 
so  generously  assigned  me  by  the  “  Presbyterian.”  The  reason  may  be  that  the  “  Presby¬ 
terian  ”  is  not  a  Senator,  and  therefore  (though  I  do  not  admit  the  validity  of  the  reason) 
less  bound  to  be  truthful  in  its  statements,  and  accurate  in  its  arithmetic  than  an  honora¬ 
ble  Senator.  Besides,  the  “Presbyterian”  being  a  religious  paper,  allowance  must 
be  made  for  its  benevolent  exaggerations,  and  its  efforts  to  be  liberal  in  dealing  with  per- 


|  24  CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


sons  of  another  creed.  It  seems,  then,  that  I  must  bid  good-bye  to  the  twenty  millions, 
and  satisfy  myself  with  what  Mr.  Brooks  allows — property  not  much  short  of  five.  Let  us 
state  it  at  four  millions.  And  now  I  have  a  proposition  to  make  to  Mr.  Brooks  which  will 
be  intpresting-  to  him  and  to  our  fellow-citizens.  In  order  to  avoid  being  reduced  to  want 
in  my  old  age,  I  propose  to  set  apart  one-half  of  this  amount,  and  to  secure  it  out  of  the 
estate,  as  a  reasonable  provision,  against  what  is  commonly  called  a  “rainy  day.”  I 
shall  reserve  to  myself  the  right  of  expending  the  other  two  millions  for  the  public  good, 
according  to  my  own  sense  of  what  is  likely  to  be  most  beneficial. 

Much  has  been  already  done  for  the  diffusion  of  knowledge ;  but  the  perusal  of  Mr. 
Brook’s  speech  and  other  kindred  documents,  satisfies  me  that  more  is  still  needed.  I  pro¬ 
pose,  therefore,  to  found  a  Public  Library  for  the  use,  not  of  any  one  profession  or  class 
of  men,  but  for  all  mankind.  I  think  that  with  the  surplus  two  millions  which  Mr.  Brooks 
has  allowed  me,  I  shall  be  enabled  to  erect  a  suitable  building ;  and  I  propose  to  furnish 
it  with  the  best  editions  of  books  that  can  be  found  in  Europe  or  America,  to  the  number 
of  five  hundred  thousand  volumes.  According  to  a  rough  estimate,  half  a  million  will  be 
sufficient  to  put  up  the  building,  a  million  to  furnish  the  books,  and  another  half  million 
to  be  funded,  so  that  the  annual  interest  may  be  sufficient  to  meet  current  expenses, — such 
as  librarians’  salaries,  gas-lights,  provision  of  Croton  water,  tables,  and  the  conveniences 
for  writing  out  any  extract  which  visitors  may  think  proper  to  make.  It  is  to  be  open  to 
natives  and  foreigners,  Catholics  and  Protestants,  Jews  and  Gentiles,  in  short,  a  real  pub¬ 
lic  library  worthy  of  this  immense  city.  And  as  an  evidence  of  my  gratitude  to  our  honor¬ 
able  Senator,  to  whom  I  am  indebted  for  the  discovery  of  my  immense  riches,  I  would  have 
it  called,  that  is  if  the  gentleman’s  modesty  will  permit  me,  the  Erastus  Brooks  Library. 
This  designation  should  be  engraven  in  large  and  gilded  letters  over  its  marble  portals, 
and  I  am  sure  the  honorable  gentleman  will  consent  to  have  the  apartment  to  be  allotted 
as  the  receptacle  of  curious  pamphlets  enriched  by  a  copy  of  his  speech,  pronounced  in  the 
Senate  at  Albany  on  the  Cth  of  March,  1855.  Thus  posterity  will  know  from  the  outside 
of  the  building  not  only  to  whom  they  are  indebted  for  so  important  a  public  institution, 
but  also  from  an  investigation  of  its  more  precious  treasures  of  literature  within,  what 
manner  of  man  their  benefactor  was. 

I  foresee  that  there  may  be  a  difficulty  about  the  location  of  the  edifice  ;  but  without 
waiting  for  the  formalities  which  have  to  be  gone  through  as  regards  other  particulars, 
we  can  settle  this  question  immediately.  Mr.  Brooks,  as  a  gentleman  of  veracity,  assured 
the  Senate  of  New  York,  after  having  examined  my  property,  that  “  Some  of  the  parcels 
cover  whole  squares  of  land,  and  nearly  all  of  them  are  of  great  value.”  Now  this  is  an 
extroardinary  discovery,  and  if  it  had  not  been  asserted  on  the  veracity  of  an  honorable 
Senator,  I  could  not  have  believed  it.  I  do  not  know  where  any  of  these  squares  of  land 
are  situated  ;  but,  of  course,  Mr.  Brooks  knows,  and  I  pledge  myself  to  give  him  a  deed 
of  any  one  of  them  he  may  choose  to  select,  provided  he  can  only  find  it  out — which  is 
more  than  I  can  do.  This  I  am  ready  to  do  to-morrow,  even  though  it  should  encroach 
on  that  portion  of  my  estate  which  I  would  reserve  for  ‘  pin-money.’  Mr.  Brooks  has 
stated  that  within  twelve  years  fifty-eight  entries  of  as  many  distinct  parcels  of  property 
were  made  in  my  favor.  Now  this  is  more  than  I  am  aware  of,  for,  in  fact,  I  never 
counted  such  entries.  So,  also,  with  regard  to  the  whole  squares  of  land  of  which  1  am 
the  owner,  if  Mr.  Brooks  has  not  made  a  statement  at  variance  with  truth.  I  am  not 
aware  of  such  ownership.  I  do  not  know  where  those  squares  of  land  are  situated.  But, 
of  course,  Mr.  Brooks  knows, — otherwise  he  would  not  have  made  the  assertion.  It  is 
possible  that  some  persons  have  made  over  to  me  squares  of  land  without  giving  auy 
intimation  of  the  fact,  and  I  should  be  much  obliged  to  Mr.  Brooks  if  he  would  take  the  , 
pains  to  consult  documents  in  the  Register's  Office  once  more,  and  let  me  know  where 
those  squares  of  land  are.  But  there  are  some  things  which  Mr.  Brooks  has  stated  with 
regard  to  my  property  which  I  know  to  be  incorrect  and  unfounded  in  truth.  He  says, 
for  instance,  that  in  the  Register’s  Office  there  are  numerous  transfers  from  trustees  to  me. 
Now,  this  statement  I  know  to  be  untrue,  inasmuch  I  have  never  received  or  accepted  any 
transfer  of  any  property  whatever  from  trustees.  In  this  particular,  at  least,  Mr.  Brooks 
allowed  himself  to  be  deceived,  and  contributed  his  share  towards  the  deception  ot  his 
fellow  Senators  and  the  public.  But  with  regard  to  the  whole  squares  of  laud  which,  he 
says  are  mine,  I  hereby  authorize  him  to  select  whichever  lie  may  choose  as  most  appro¬ 
priate  for  the  site  of  the  new  Library  ;  or  if  none  of  them  should  suit,  I  authorize  him  to 
sell  any  one  of  them  at  his  option,  for  cash,  pledging  myself,  as  1  do  hereby,  to  give  to 
the  purchaser  such  deed  as  1  possess  of  the  same. 

You  may  suppose,  gentlemen,  that  all  this  is  written  in  playfulness.  Now  whether  or 
not,  will  depend  upon  the  truth  of  Mr.  Brooks’  statements,  made  in  the  Senate  of  New 
\ork  on  the  Cth  of  March.  If  Mr.  Brooks  was  in  earnest,  so  was  1.  It  Mr.  Brooks,  on 
a  matter  of  fact,  spoke  the  truth,  taking  his  assertion  as  the  ground  of  my  hypothesis,  1 
speak  the  truth  also.  If  my  property  is  not  much  short  of  five  millions,  as  Mr.  Brooks 
asserted,  I  pledge  myself  solemnly  that  there  is  no  jest  as  to  the  project  of  the  new 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN.  25 


Library.  But  if  on  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Brooks  did  not  speak  the  truth  in  the  statements 
which  he  made,  the  worse  for  posterity  and  the  worse  for  him.  The  matter  is  reduced  at 
present  to  a  question  of  veracity,  and  it  is  for  Mr.  Brooks  to  prove  his  assertion,  or  occupy 
the  position  which  his  failure  to  do  so  has  in  reserve  for  him. 

In  sober  seriousness,  however,  is  it  not  melancholy  to  witness  the  multitudinous  and 
mendacious  charges  which  are  made  from  day  to  day  against  Catholics  as  a  body,  and 
against  individuals  professing  their  religion?  If  there  be  an  intention  among  the  public 
men  of  this  country  to  disfranchise  Catholics,  to  abridge  them  of  their  rights,  in  the  name 
of  all  that  is  honorable,  I  would  say  let  it  be  done  by  a  manly  and  noble  declaration  to 
that  effect.  If  Protestantism  cannot  thrive  in  this  country  unless  it  have  some  one  or 
more  denominations  to  degrade  and  trample  upon,  as  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  let.  it 
speak  out  candidly  and  make  known  the  fact.  If  defamation  in  aggregate  and  in  detail 
can  accomplish  it,  the  Catholics  of  this  country  will  soon  be  degraded  enough  in  the 
minds  of  their  fellow-citizens.  But  even  of  this  we  should  not  have  so  much  reason  to 
complain  if  the  purpose  were  openly  avowed,  so  that  all  parties  would  have  fair  and 
timely  warning.  If  that  should  be  done,  I  have  no  hesitation  in  taking  on  myself  to  say, 
that  so  far  as  Catholics  are  concerned,  immigration  will  soon  come  to  a  dead  stand,  and 
emigration  would  probably  commence. 

It  is  exceedingly  painful  to  me  to  have  to  appear  in  the  public  press  in  reference  to 
topics  of  this  kind  ;  but  if  the  trustees  of  St.  Louis  Church,  and  even  an  honorable  Sena¬ 
tor,  accuse  me  of  acts  which  would  be  dishonorable,  and  even  dishonest,  if  they  were 
true,  have  I  not  a  right,  is  it  not  my  duty,  both  to  myself  and  to  those  who  take  any 
interest  in  my  reputation,  to  hurl  back  the  false  accusations  in  the  very  face  of  their 
authors?  If  Messrs.  Brooks  and  others  make  charges  against  me  by  name  which  I  know 
to  be  false,  have  I  not  a  right  to  defend  myself,  and  to  denounce  them  as  unreliable  and 
false  witnesses?  If  not,  I  have  studied  the  §ense  of  justice  and  fair  play  by  which 
Americans  are  actuated  to  very  little  purpose.  If  I  have  no  right  to  defend  myself  when 
assailed,  personally  and  by  name,  by  any  man,  against  false  accusation,  then  I  have 
studied  the  rights  of  an  American  citizen  and  the  genius  of  American  institutions  to 
very  little  purpose  indeed.  I  respect  the  dignity  of  a  Senator,  but  when  an  individnal 
who  is  invested  with  the  dignity,  trifles  with  it  at  my  expense,  I  claim  the  right  to  hold 
him  responsible  for  the  accuracy  of  his  statements. 

For  these  reasons,  I  request  Mr.  Erastus  Brooks,  with  all  the  respect  which  is  due  to 
him,  to  meet  the  issue  of  veracity  between  him  and  me,  and  either  to  prove  his  state¬ 
ments,  or  to  retract  them  under  the  impulse  of  those  high  principles  which  constitute  an 
honorable  man,  whether  he  be  a  Senator  or  not. 

fJOHN,  Archbishop  of  New  York. 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES,  SENATOR  BROOKS,  AND  A  QUESTION  OF  VERACITY. 

To  the  Editors  of  the  JVew  York  Courier  and  Enquirer : 

From  the  pressure  of  official  duties  at  Albany,  up  to  a  late  hour  on  Saturday  evening, 
I  have  only  this  moment  been  able  to  give  a  full  perusal  to  the  letter  signed  “  f  John! 
Archbishop  of  New  York,”  in  reply  to  a  speech  of  mine  delivered  in  the  Senate  on  the  6th 
of  March  last.  I  write  now,  not  to  answer  the  question  of  veracity  between  the  Archbishop 
and  myself,  and  not  to  comment  upon  the  peculiar  temper  and  language  of  .the  Arch¬ 
bishop’s  epistle — but  to  say  that  I  shall  accept  and  demand,  in  behalf  of  the  city  and  the 
public,  and  in  perfect  good  faith— if  the  promise  was  made  in  good  faith— the  offer  of  that 
Public  Library  which  is  tendered  in  my  name,  i;  not  for  the  use  of  any  one  profession  or 
class  of  men,  but  for  all  mankind.” 

As  a  condition  of  this  pledge,  I  am  to  show  that  Archbishop  Hughes  is,  or  was,  on  the 
6th  of  March  last,  the  owner,  in  his  own  name,  and  in  this  city,  of  a  large  amount  of  Real 
Estate ;  and  to  show,  also,  that  this  property  is,  or  was  upon  the  record,  legally  his  own, 
to  dispose  of  by  assignment,  by  will,  or  otherwise,  as  he  may  or  might  direct. 

I  assume,  notwithstanding  the  reasons  for  believing  otherwise,  that  in  making  his  offer 
the  Archbishop  does  not  mean  to  conceal  the  truth,  omit  the  truth,  or  to  resort  to  any 
subterfuge  whatever.  I  assume,  too,  that  he  agrees  with  me  that  the  true  definition  of  a 
lie  is  an  l:  intention  to  deceive,”  and  that  he  also  agrees  with  the  moralist,  William  Paley, 
who  lays  it  down  as  an  axiom,  that  one  may  state  ninety-nine  facts  and  yet  not  utter  the 
whole  truth,  because  one  truth  added  would  change  the  basis  of  the  ninety-nine  facts. 

On  this  presumption  I  shall  maintain,  at  my  earliest  leisure,  the  spirit,  substance,  and 


26  CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


reality  of  all  that  -was  asserted  by  me  in  the  speech  now  in  controversy  upon  the  subject  of 
Church  property  in  this  city.  And  in  order  that  this  question  may  be  met  fairly,  at  the 
start,  and  in  order  that  the  City  of  New  York  may  be  put  in  possession  of  the  promised 
Public  Library,  I  propose,  preliminary  to  all  public  controversy,  that  one  arbiter  shall 
be  named  by  Archbishop  Hughes,  one  by  myself,  and  that  the  two  thus  selected,  shall 
jointly  elect  a  third,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  decide,  not  merely  whether  I  have  stated 
the  truth,  or  whether  Archbishop  Hughes  has  equivocated  or  omitted  the  truth,  but  also  the 
claim  of  New  York  City  to  that  Public  Library,  in  which  I  shall  hereafter  feel  so  deep  an 
interest.  I  am  ready  for  the  arbitration,  and  shall  be  ready  with  my  facts. 

Very  respectfully, 

ERASTUS  BROOKS. 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES,  SENATOR  BROOKS,  AND  THE  QUESTION  OF 

VERACITY. 

To  the  Editors  of  the  J\Tew  York  Courier  and  Enquirer: 

I  proceed  to  reply  to  the  letter  of  “  f  John,  Archbishop  of  New  York,’7  in  regard  to 
his  ownership  of  real  estate  property  in  the  city  of  New  York.  I  have  no  time  to  waste 
in  humor,  evasion,  or  words,  and  therefore,  shall  not  follow  the  example  of  even  so  illustri¬ 
ous  a  personage  as  the  Archbishop  in  what  he  has  to  say  upon  irrelevant  topics.  “  The 
Presbyterian'7  can  speak  for  itself  as  to  the  amount  of  property  held  by  the  Archbishop 
throughout  the  entire  State.  What  is  said  of  “riches,77  and  “  provisions  for  rainy  days,77 
of  “  pin-money 77  and  “  mendacity,71  of  “  defamation77  and  “  immigration,77  and  even  of  that 
Public  Library  which  the  Archbishop  now  owes  the  city  of  New  York,  if  he  is  a  man  of  his 
word,  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  fact  and  extent  of  bis  ownership  of  real  estate.  As  the 
guilty  boy  at  school  and  the  guilty  man  in  Court  endeavor  to  turn  teacher  and  judge, 
master  and  Court,  from  the  contemplation  of  facts  certain  to  lead  to  their  conviction,  so 
my  distinguished  accuser,  slippery  as  an  eel,  seems  unwilling  fairly  to  meet  the  facts  as  I 
presented  them  to  the  Senate.  I  might  rejoin  by  saying  that  when  the  head  of  a  Church 
leaves  the  pulpit  and  gospel  to  become  personal  and  political  in  controversy,  he  ceases  to 
command  that  measure  of  respect  which  would  otherwise  be  due  his  religious  office. 

This  is  not  the  first  time  the  Archbishop  has  volunteered  to  participate  in  secular  strife, 
or  lost  his  usual  civility  in  defending  what  he  esteems  to  be  the  rights  of  the  Romish 
Church.  The  Common  School  discussion  found  him  alternately  at  the  City  Hall  and  Car- 
roll  Hall,  addressing,  in  the  latter  place,  amidst  vociferous  shouts,  and  in  loud  partizan 
appeals,  an  excited  Irish  populace,  who,  with  all  other  citizens,  were  directly  appealed  to, 
to  elect  such  men  only  to  the  Legislature,  as  would  oppose  the  reading  of  the  simple  texts 
of  the  Bible  in  the  Common  Schools  of  the  city.  The  Common  School  question  then,  and 
the  Church  Property  question  now,  seem  equally  to  have  disturbed  the  amiability  and 
equanimity  of  the  Archbishop. 

Before  entering  upon  the  material  part  of  this  controversy,  let  me  say,  in  answer  to  the 
Archbishop7s  sweeping  assertion  to  the  contrary,  that  at  no  time  has  any  public  man  or  party 
in  this  State,  attempted  “  to  disfranchise  Catholics  or  abridge  them  of  their  rights.77  The 
charge  is  a  fiction,  unworthy  the  high  clerical  character  of  the  man  who  makes  it.  Where — 
when — by  whom — has  any  such  disfranchisement  been  attempted  ?  The  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  of  this  State,  knowing  no  distinction  of  sects  in  religion,  places  the 
believers  of  every  faith  upon  that  perfect  equality,  from  which  no  man — certainly  no  true 
American  citizen — proposes  to  remove  them.  When,  therefore,  the  Archbishop  talks  of 
“  hurling  back  such  false  accusations,  in  the  very  faces  of  their  authors,”  I  must  respect¬ 
fully  advise  him  to  stand  from  under,  if  he  would  not  have  his  own  blows  fall  upon 
himself. 

The  Archbishop  in  his  long  epistle  to  my  short  rejoinder,  is  pleased  to  charge  me  with 
“falsehood,77  “ falsehood ,”  “  falsehood.”  A  scullion  can  call  names,  and  use  epithets — 
but  names  and  epithets  are  not  truth.  The  utterance  of  such  language  by  an  Archbishop, 
and  the  bad  temper  displayed  in  the  two  letters  to  me,  will  carry  conviction  with  all 
impartial  minds,  that  I  have  already  made  out  my  case,  even  though  I  have  but  begun 
the  work  of  exposition.  The  Prelate,  not  daring  manfully  to  meet  the  issue  I  have  raised, 
finds  relief  in  personality  and  rage. 

I  have  proposed  that  upon  the  issue  of  veracity  between  the  Archbishop  and  myself 
that  he  should  select  one  arbiter,  I  a  second,  and  the  two  a  third,  and  that  these  three  men 
should  decide,  upon  the  legal  facts,  to  be  presented  for  their  consideration,  which  of  the 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN. 


27 


two  uttered  the  falsehood.  The  Archbishop  declines  the  proposition,  and  declares 
that  ‘'-Arbitration  is  unnecessary. ”  I  feared  that  it  would  come  to  this  at  the  start,  and 
that  the  promised  library  was  but  a  “  word  of  promise  to  the  ear,  to  be  broken  to  the 
hope.” 

But  if  I  must  lose  a  library  for  the  city,  I  do  not  mean  to  lose  my  temper,  nor  to  allow 
the  Archbishop  to  escape  with  mere  denials  of  facts,  however  bitter  and  angry  they 
may  be. 

"What  I  meant  and  mean  by  the  ownership  of  Real  Estate,  is  what  the  law  means  by  it, 
and.  therefore,  we  can  have  no  misunderstanding  of  ideas.  I  mean  that  the  legal  title  is 
vested  in  John  Hughes.  I  mean  by  John  Hughes,  the  Archbishop  of  New  York.  I  mean 
by  •“  ownership  of  Real  Estate,”  the  legal  right  to  control,  possess,  and  use  it,  by  assign¬ 
ment,  by  will,  or  otherwise.  I  mean,  that  if  the  Archbishop,  John  Hughes,  were  to  die 
without  a  will,  or  to  change  his  faith,  or  should  choose  to  dispose  of  his  property  to  his 
own  heirs,  or  for  his  personal  advantage,  that  he  has  the  legal  power  to  do  so,  at  his  own 
good  will  and  pleasure.  I  mean  that,  in  fact  and  in  act,  by  the  Baltimore  Ordinances  of 
1849  and  1852,  by  prior  claim  and  subsequent  determination,  he  and  other  Archbishops 
and  Bishops,  own,  assume,  control,  and  direct  the  temporalities  of  the  church,  its  lands, 
its  estates,  and  its  entire  property.  I  mean,  speaking  now  after  an  examination  of  legal 
Records  and  Indentures,  that  the  conveyances  to  the  Archbishop  are  “  to  him,  his  heirs,  or 
assignees and  no  others.  I  mean,  of  course,  also,  that  no  trust  is  specified  in  the  deed, 
and  that  the  conveyances,  without  such  specification  of  trust,  would,  in  case  of  his  death, 
go  to  the  next  of  kin.  I  think  I  am  understood,  and  that  no  one  will  accuse  me  of  seek¬ 
ing  a  loop-hole  of  escape,  or  of  any  desire  to  occupy  an  equivocal  position. 

Now  for  the  record,  in  part. 

In  the  Archbishop’s  letter  of  last  week,  charging  me  directly  with  deception  and  indi¬ 
rectly  with  mendacity,  I  find  the  following  : 

S 

“  But  there  are  some  things  which  Mr.  Brooks  has  stated  with  regard  to  my  property,  which  I  know  to  be 
incorrect  and  unfounded  in  truth.  He  says,  for  instance,  that  in  the  Register’s  Office  there  are  numerous 
transfers  from  trustees  to  me.  Now,  this  statement  I  know  to  be  untrue,  inasmuch  as  I  have  never  received 
or  accepted  any  transfer  of  any  property  whatever  from  trustees.” 

In  the  Archbishop’s  letter  of  this  week,  the  following  appears  : 


“  The  third  falsehood  was,  that  many  of  the  conveyances  of  real  estate  to  me  were  made  by  Trustees. 
Now,  I  state  that  any  one  who  asserts  either  of  these  three  statements,  asserts  a  gross,  and  towards  me,  an 
injurious  falsehood.” 

I  now  offer  proofs  of  my  statement,  from  the  legal  records  of  the  city,  beginning  with 
the  conveyance  made  to  John  Hughes  from  the  Trustees  of  St.  John’s  Roman  Catholic 
Church  : 

CONVEYANCES  TO  JOHN  HUGHES. 


NUMBER  1, 

Trustees  of  St.  John’s  'l  Lease.  Dated  July  17, 1844. 
Roman  Catholic  Church  — 999  years.  Considera- 

to  tion  one  cent  a  year.  Re- 

John  Hughes.  corded  in  liber.  451,  p. 

J  249,  July  20,  1844. 

All  those  three  certain  lots,  pieces  or  parcels  of 
lands,  situate  in  the  16th  (late  12th)  Ward  of  the 
City  of  New  York,  which  taken  together  are  bounded 
and  contain  as  follows,  namely  :  beginning  on  the 
northerly  side  of  30th  street,  100  feet  from  the  west¬ 
erly  side  of  the  7th  avenue,  running  thence  northerly 
and  parallel  with  the  7th  avenue  100  feet,  thence 
westerly  and  parallel  with  30th  street,  75  feet  thence 
southerly  and  parallel  to  7th  avenue  100  feet,  to  the 
northerly  side  of  30th  street,  thence  easterly  and 
along  the  northerly  side  of  30th  street  75  feet  to  be¬ 
ginning. 

NUMBER  2. 


Patrick  Doherty  )  Indenture  of  Lease  dated  July  2, 
to  v  1842. — Recorded  in  liber.  448,  p. 

John  Hughes.  )  17,  April  13,  1844,  conveyed  to 

P.  Doherty  by  the  Mayor,  Aldermen,  &c.  of  the  City 
of  New  York,  and  by  him  conveyed  to  John  Hughes. 
Consideration  $24  17-100.  Leased  for  assessment 
tax.  Yide  page  15,  20  years. 

Lot,  piece  or  parcel  of  land,  known  and  distin¬ 
guished  on  the  assessment  map  for  the  opening  of 
117th  street,  from  4th  avenue  to  Harlem  river,  by  the 


numbers  5,  assessed  to  St.  Paul’s  Church,  situate  on 
the  north  side  of  117th  street,  between  4th  avenue 
and  the  Old  Post  Road,  being  100  feet  front,  for  which 
he  has  paid  the  sum  of  $7  94-100. 


number  3. 


Date  of  Deed,  February 
6,  1S45.  Recorded  in 
liber  455,  p.  446,  Feb¬ 
ruary  21,  1845.  Con¬ 
sideration  $2,000. 


George  Wildes,  merchant,' 
and  Agnes,  his  wife,  by 
WTm.  C.  Pickersgill,  his 
attorney, 
to 

John  Hughes. 

All  those  two  certain  lots,  pieces  or  parcels  ^of 
ground,  situate,  lying  and  being  in  the  City  of  New 
York,  on  the  northerly  side  of  25th  street,  between 
the  8th  and  9th  avenues,  and  known  and  distinguish¬ 
ed  on  a  certain  map  of  ground  situated  at  Greenwich 
in  the  City  of  New  York,  belonging  to  Thomas  B. 
Clark,  made  by  Amos  Corning  and  Uzal  W.  Freeman, 
City  Surveyor,  and  filed  in  the  Register’s  Office,  by 
the  numbers  230  and  231,  and  being  taken  together 
are  bounded  by  the  said  map  as  follows,  to  wit:  be¬ 
ginning  at  a  point  on  the  said  northerly  side  of  25th 
street,  300  feet  easterly  from  the  north-east  corner 
of  the  9th  avenue  and  25th  street,  thence  northerly 
on  line  parallel  with  the  9th  avenue,  along  lot  dis¬ 
tinguished  on  said  map  by  the  number  232,  98  feet  9 
inches,  thence  easterly  parallel  with  25th  street,  along 
the  rears  of  lots  distinguished  on  said  map  by  the 
numbers  206  and  207,  50  feet,  thence  southerly,  par¬ 
allel  with  the  9th  avenue,  along  lot  distinguished  on 


28  CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 

said  map  by  the  number  229,  98  feet  9  inches  to  25th 
street,  and  thence  westerly  along  the  northerly  side 
of  25th  street  50  feet,  to  the  place  of  beginning. 

NUMBER  4. 

Andrew  Byrne  )  Date  April  30th,  1S41.  Record — 

to  >-  liber  456,  p.  487.  March  29, 1845. 

John  Hughes.  )  Consideration,  $5,400.  Convey¬ 
ance  of  lease  for  IS  years  and  9  months.  No  descrip¬ 
tion  of  premises. 

Robert  Lane,  and  1  Conveyance  date,  March  5th, 
EfTe  Maria,  his  wife,  (  1S45.  Record,  liber  459,  p. 

to  |  125.  Consideration,  $15,- 

John  Hughes.  J  500. 

All  those  three  certain  lots  of  land  situated  in  6th 
Ward  of  the  City  of  New  York,  which  on  a  certain 
map  of  property,  belonging  to  the  estate  of  George 
Janeway,  in  the  6th  Ward  of  the  City  of  New  York, 
made  by  Joseph  Bridges,  City  Surveyor,  surveyed 
(as  to  part  lots  on  said  map)  in  January,  1S3S,  are 
distinguished  by  the  numbers  17,  IS,  and  19.  Said 
lot,  No.  17,  being  situated  at  the  corner  of  City  Hall 
Place  and  Duane  street,  and  said  three  lots  are 
bounded  as  follows,  that  is  to  say,  beginning  at  the 
easterly  corner  of  City  Hall  Place  (late  Augustus 
street)  and  Duane  street,  thence  running  southerly 
in  front  along  Duane  towards  Chatham,  75  feet  to 
other  ground  of  the  estate  of  the  said  George  Jane¬ 
way  ;  thence  running  northeasterly  on  the  one  side 
along  the  ground  of  the  estate  of  the  said  George 
Janeway,  67  feet  2  inches,  to  other  ground  of  estate 
of  said  George  Janeway,  and  formerly  leased  by  him 
to  Mrs.  Phillips ;  thence  running  northwesterly  in 
the  rear  along  the  said  ground  leased  to  Mrs.^phil- 
lips  as  aforesaid,  75  feet  to  City  Hall  Place  (formerly 
Augustus  street),  aforesaid  ;  thence  running  south¬ 
westerly  on  the  other  side  along  City  Hall  Place 
aforesaid  67  feet  to  place  of  beginning. 

NUMBER  5. 

David  Dudley  Field,  and  Date  of  Con.  Feb.  7th, 
Stephen  J.  Field,  Trustees  1S45.  Record  (liber 

of  wife,  and  Harriet  D.  460,  p.  497.  Consider- 

Field,  wife  of  D.  D.  Field,  ation,  $2, 000), May  23d, 

to  1S45. 

John  Hughes. 

All  those  two  certain  lots,  pieces  or  parcels  of  land, 
situated  in  the  16th  Ward  of  the  City  of  New  York, 
known  and  distinguished  on  a  map  of  lands  in  the 
16th  Ward  of  the  City  of  New  York,  the  property  of 
the  heirs  of  Mary  Clarke,  deceased,  made  by  George 

B.  Smith,  City  Surveyor,  and  dated  April  6th,  1S37, 

(a  copy  on  file  in  Register’s  Office)  by  numbers  228 
and  229,  and  bounded,  taken  together,  as  follows : 
beginning  at  a  point  on  the  northerly  line  of  25th 
street,  distant  350  feet  easterly  from  northeast  corner 
of  25th  street  and  9th  avenue,  running  thence  east¬ 
erly  along  said  northerly  line  50,  thence  northerly, 
parallel  with  9th  avenue,  9S  feet  9  inches,  to  middle 
of  the  block  between  25th  street  and  26th  street,  to  a 
point  equidistant  from  the  two  ;  thence  westerly, 
parallel  with  25th  street,  50  feet ;  thence  southerly 
in  a  straight  line  to  place  of  beginning. 

NUMBER  6. 

Wm.  Patton,  D.  D.,!  Date  of  Con.  May  9th,  1S45. 
and  Mary  his  wife,  !  Rec.  (in  liber  460,  p.  550) 
to  f  MaySl,l$45.  Consideration, 

John  Hughes.  J  $75. 

All  and  singular,  the  equal  undivided  half-part 
(being  the  S.  part  thereof,)  of  a  certain  vault  or 
place  for  the  deposit  of  the  dead,  situated  in  and 
upon  the  premises  formerly  owned  by  the  2d  avenue 
Presbyterian  Church,  on  the  easterly  side  of,  and 
fronting  on  the  2d  avenue,  between  2d  and  3d  streets. 
(Wm.  Patton,  liber  460,  p.  551,  same.) 

NUMBER  7. 

Geo.  Wildes,  'I  Date  of  Convey.  Feb.  6, 1845. 

and  Agnes,  his  wife,  |  Record,  liber  465,  p.  513. 

to  (  Sept.  23,  1845.  Considera. 

J.  Hughes.  J  tion,  $2,000. 

All  those  two  certain  lots,  pieces  or  parcels  of 
ground,  situate,  lying  and  being  in  16th  Ward  of 

City  of  New  York,  on  northerly  side  of  25th  street, 
between  Sth  and  9th  avenues.  (Same  as  other  in 
liber  455.  p.  416.) 

NUMBER  8. 

Bartholomew  O’Connor,  ~\  Date  of  Conveyance 
Trustee  to  Christ  Church,  Feb.  7,  1845  ;  Record! 

to  f  liber  405,  p.  514,  Sept! 

23, 1S45;  Consideration, 

John  Hughes.  J  $42,090. 

All  four  lots  of  ground,  situate,  &c.,  in  the  4th 
lYard,  City  of  New  York,  bounded  and  containing  as 
follows:  Westerly  by  James  street,  100  feet;  South- 
erjy  by  ground  now  or  lately  belonging  to  Walter 
Bowne,  100  feet ;  Easterly,  in  the  rear,  partly  by 

ground  now  or  late  of - Gardner,  100  feet ;  and, 

Northerly,  by  ground  now  or  late  belonging  to 
Samuel  Milbank,  100  feet.  I.iber  466,  p.  422,  quit 
claim  for  land  described  in  liber  460,  p.  497  •  consi¬ 
deration,  $1,000. 

NUMBER  9. 

George  Plammann,  and 

Catharine  A.,  his  wife  ;  „ 

Thomas  Ward,  and  ®ate  ofr  C°n- 

Margaretta,  his  wife,  veyance,  Feb.  6, 

Nat.  P.  Bailey,  and  his  wife,  et  ctl., 

to  Feb.  19,’  1S47 ; 

Nicholas  Dean,  of  the  2d  part,  non* aU°n  — 

and  $ou,uuu. 

John  Hughes,  of  the  3d  part. 

RLV  de"gymanyrne’]  Date  of  Conveyance,  Dec. 
clergyman,  1  6>  1S4g  Rec01-ded  in  liber, 

to  [  p.  178,  Feb.  10,  1S44.  Con- 

John  Hughes,  Bishop.  J  sidel'alioD’  *3.S25- 

All  those  three  certain  lots  of  land,  together  with 
the  buildings  thereon  erected,  situate,  lying,  and 
being  in  the  (now  or  late)  11th  Ward  of  the  City  of 

New  York,  and  being  part  of  the  estate  of  Mangle 
Minthorne,  deceased,  and  are  known  and  described 
on  the  map  of  the  said  estate,  now  on  file  in  the 
Register’s  Office,  of  the  said  City  of  New  York,  by 
lots  numbers  71,  72,  73  ;  fronting  westwardly  on  the 

2d  Avenue,  and  are  bounded  as  follows :  north¬ 
wardly,  by  lot  No.  74 ;  eastwardly,  by  lot  No.  76,  and 
land  formerly  called  the  Hilyer  estate;  southerly, by 
land  of  the  said  Hilyer  estate ;  and,  westerly,  by  the 

2d  Avenue  aforesaid.  The  said  three  lots  being  in 
length,  on  each  side,  100  feet;  and  the  said  lots, 
numbers  72  and  73,  being  each  in  width,  in  front  and 
rear,  25  feet ;  and  the  said  lot,  number  71,  being  in 
width,  in  front,  25  feet ;  and  in  width  on  the  rear  24 
feet  and  11  inches,  as  the  said  lots  are  laid  down 
and  numbered  on  the  said  map.  Being  the  same 
premises  whereon  the  Church  of  the  Nativity  now 
stands ;  subject,  however,  to  a  mortgage,  by  the 
party  of  1st  part,  to  Rev.  John  Corry,  to  secure  the 
payment  of  $5,000  and  interest. 

NUMBER  10. 

Same  'J  j)ate  of  Conveyance,  6th  December,  1S43 
to  Recorded  February  10th,  1S44.  Considera- 

Same.J  tion’  $3,S25. 

All  that  certain  lot,  piece  or  parcel  of  land,  situate, 
lying,  and  being  in  the  17th  Ward  (late  11th)  of  the 

City  of  New  York,  fronting  on  the  easterly  line  of  2d 
Avenue,  between  Second  and  Third  streets,  begin¬ 
ning  at  a  point  distant  64  feet  seven  inches  from  the 
northeast  cjorner  of  said  2d  Avenue  and  Second 
street;  running  thence  eastwardly  and  parallel  to 

Second  street  75  feet;  thence  northwardly  and  par¬ 
allel  to  the  said  2d  Avenue  21  feet  and  6  inches  to 
the  place  of  beginning;  the  said  lot  being  part  of 
lots  known  and  distinguished  by  the  letters  C  and  D 
on  a  map  of  property  in  the  llth  and  13th  Wards  of 
the  City  of  New  York,  belonging  to  the  estate  of 

Henry  Eckford,  deceased,  filed  in  Office  of  Register, 
and  numbered  230.  Also,  all  that  certain  other  lot, 
piece,  or  parcel  of  land,  situate,  lying,  and  being  in 
the  17th  (late  llth)  Ward  of  said  City  of  New  York, 

SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN. 


fronting  on  the  northerly  line  of  Second  street,  be¬ 
tween  the  1st  and  2d  Avenues.  Beginning  at  a  point 
distant  75  feet  from  the  northeast  corner  of  2d  Ave¬ 
nue  and  Second  street,  and  running  thence  north¬ 
wardly  parallel  to  2d  Avenue  aforesaid  S6  feet; 


29 

thence  eastwardly  parallel  to  Second  street  afore¬ 
said  25  feet;  thence  southwardly  parallel  to  2d  Ave¬ 
nue  aforesaid  S6  feet ;  thence  westw-ardly  along  the 
said  line  of  Second  street  aforesaid  25  feet  to  the 
place  of  beginning. 


This  is  but  the  beginning  of  the  end.  It  is  only  the  basis  of  my  claim  to  that  promised 
public  library  which  the  Archbishop  owes  to  the  City  of  New  York,  and  which,  for  the 
next  fifty  years,  if  he  and  I  should  live  so  long,  I  shall  demand  in  the  name  of  the  people 
of  this  city,  “  for  the  use,  not  of  any  one  profession  or  class,  but  for  all  mankind.”  The 
amiable  archbishop — and  he  is  arch  in  more  senses  than  one — is  pleased  to  say,  if  my 
modesty  will  permit,  that  this  great  library  shall  bear  the  name  of  “  The  Erastus  Brooks’ 
Library,  engraven  in  large  and.  gilded  letters  over  its  marble  portals.”  I  have  no  such 
ambition  to  have  my  name  handed  down  to  posterity ;  and,  grateful  at  this  new  display  of 
the  Archbishop’s  new-born  zeal  for  public  libraries  and  letters,  for  intelligence  and  history, 
I  prefer  that  this  library,  which  will  exist,  I  fear,  only  in  the  broken  promises  of  an  irrita¬ 
ble  prelate,  if  ever  founded  at  all,  should  bear  the  name,  not  in  '•  large  and  gilded  letters,” 
but  rather  in  large  letters  of  brass,  corresponding  with  the  brazen  denials  of  the  man,  the 
name  of  “t  John,  Archbishop  of  the  Province  of  New  York  ” 

For  to-day,  I  am,  very  respectfully,  yours, 


ERASTUS  BROOKS. 


New  York,  April  18th,  1855. 


SENATOR  ERASTUS  BROOKS  IN  AN  AWKWARD  POSITION. 

To  the  Editors  of  the  Courier  and  Enquirer  : 

I  am  glad  to  perceive  by  his  attempted  defence  in  your  paper  of  this  date,  that  Mr. 
Brooks  begins  to  realize  vaguely  the  position  in  which  he  has  placed  himself.  He 
commences  his  pitiable  defence  by  misrepresenting  the  state  of  the  question.  He  says  it  is 
“  in  regard  to  my  ownership  of  property  in  the  city  of  New  York.”  The  question  is  not 
in  regard  to  any  such  thing,  and  this  Mr.  Brooks  knows  as  well  as  I  do.  The  question  is 
in  regard  to  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  certain  statements  made  by  him  in  the  Senate  of 
New  York,  on  the  6th  of  March  ;  in  reference  to  my  ownership  of  real  estate  property,  as 
Mr.  Brooks  calls  it,  there  is  no  question.  The  title  of  many  Catholic  Churches  in  the 
city  of  New  Y'ork  is  vested  in  me,  and  so  far  I  am  the  owner.  My  intention,  even,  is  to 
add  to  this  property  by  purchasing  such  additional  lots,  or  accepting  the  gift  of  them,  as 
I  may  find  from  time  to  time  to  be  desirable  for  providing  religious  instruction  for  the 
wants  of  the  Catholic  flock  committed  to  my  charge.  If  Mr.  Brooks  will  examine  the 
records  of  the  city  of  New  YTork  three  months  from  this  time,  he  will  probably  find  con¬ 
veyances  made  to  me  by  parties  who  have  the  right  to  sell  or  bestow  as  they  think  proper. 

But  I  shall  'waive  all  controversy  regarding  matters  introduced  into  Mr.  Brooks's  reply, 
in  order  to  direct  his  wandering  attention  to  the  real  state  of  the  case.  On  the  6th  of 
March  he  asserted  that  my  property  in  the  city  of  New  York  alone  was  not  much  short  of 
five  millions.  This  was  falsehood  No.  1.  He  asserted  that  of  this  property,  numerous 
transfers  had  been  made  to  me  by  Trustees.  This  was  falsehood  No.  2.  He  asserted  that 
some  of  the  parcels  conveyed  to  me  covered  whole  squares  of  land.  This  was  falsehood 
No.  3. 

Now,  we  shall  take  these  falsehoods  in  their  order.  Mr.  Brooks,  in  maintaining  false¬ 
hood  No.  1,  has  copied  out  ten  entries  as  found  in  the  Register’s  books  of  this  city.  He 
heads  the  list  with  the  •words — 

“  CONVEYANCES  TO  JOHN  HUGHES.” 

The  first  conveyance  is  a  lease,  which  shows,  so  far  as  the  ownership  of  real  estate  is 
concerned,  that  the  very  heading  of  the  entries  is  not  correct. 

The  second  is  also  a  lease,  showing  the  same  thing.  - 

The  third  is  from  George  Wildes  and  Agnes  his  wife,  and  it  remains  for  Mr.  Brooks  to 
show  that  Mr.  Wildes  and  his  wife  had  been  Trustees  of  a  Catholic  church. 

The  fourth  is  from  Andrew  Byrne,  and  is  the  conveyance,  not  of  real  estate,  but  of 
lease  also. 

The  fifth  is  from  David  Dudley  Field  and  Stephen  J.  Field,  Trustees  of  Wife  and 
Harriet  D.  Field,  wife  of  D.  D.  Field.  (I  copy  from  Mr.  Brooks’  report  of  these  matters 
in  your  journal,  but  I  decline  all  responsibility  for  their  accuracy).  Mr.  Brooks  does  not 
inform  us  whether  these  parties  had  been  Trustees  of  Catholic  church  property  or  not. 


30  CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


The  sixth  is  from  the  Rev.  Win.  Batten,  D.  D.,  and  Mary  his  wife.  Mr.  Brooks  does  not 
say  that  the  Rev.  Dr.  and  his  wife  had  been  Trustees  of  any  Catholic  church. 

Here  Mr.  Senator  Brooks  seems  to  have  become  desperate,  and  gives  a  duplicate  under 
head  No.  7,  of  the  conveyance  made  by  George  Wildes  and  Agnes  his  wife,  as  already 
recorded  under  head  No.  3.  I  was  not  aware  that  Mr.  Wildes  had  given  me  two  deeds  of 
ihe  same  property.  But  Mr.  Senator  Brooks  is  a  man  of  singular  enterprise,  and  he  has 
made  the  discovery,  and  has  attempted  to  impose  upon  the  public,  by  a  falsehood,  so 
easily  to  be  detected. 

No.  8  is  from  Mr.  Bartholomew  O'Connor,  who,  if  Mr.  Brooks  is  to  be  believed,  is  named 
in  the  record  as  Trustee  to  Christ’s  Church — the  truth  being  that  Mr.  Bartholomew 
O'Connor,  in  that  case  was  only  the  Assignee  of  a  bankrupt  Board  of  Trustees. 

No.  9  is  from  George  Plammann,  and  Catharine  A.  his  wife ;  Thomas  Ward,  and  Marga- 
retta  his  wife  ;  Nathaniel  P.  Baily,  and  his  wife,  et  al.  to  Nicholas  Dean,  of  the  Second 
part,  and  John  Hughes,  of  the  third  part.  Under  the  same  No.  9  we  find  immediately 
following,  Andrew  Byrne,  Clergyman,  to  John  Hughes,  Bishop. 

No.  10.  is  a  specimen  of  Mr.  Brooks’s  eloquent  brevity  of  style.  It  is  entitled,  “  Same 
to  Same."  Here  again  Mr.  Brooks  duplicates  the  same  conveyance,  so  that  in  the  simple 
copying  from  the  Register,  by  way  of  defence  for  older  falsehoods,  he  invents  new  ones, 
and  in  two  instances  copies  the  same  conveyances — I  suppose  by  way  of  guarding  against 
mistakes. 

I  hope  the  respectable  gentlemen  and  their  wives  here  mentioned,  will  hold  Mr.  Brooks 
and  not  me  responsible  for  having  their  names  paraded  in  a  public  newspaper.  The 
extract  of  all  these  entries  is  brought  forth  by  Mr.  Brooks,  to  substantiate  what  I  have 
taken  the  liberty  to  call  his  falsehood  uttered  in  the  Senate  of  New  York,  when  he  alleged 
in  his  official  capacity,  and  as  one  having  taken  pains  to  be  well  informed  on  the  subject, 
that  the  value  of  my  real  estate  in  the  city  of  New  York  alone  was  not  much  short  of  five 
millions.  We  have  just  seen  that  Mr.  Brooks  has  counted  two  conveyances  each  twice 
over,  and  that  instead  of  ten  conveyances  there  are  in  reality  only  eight  on  the  very  record 
which  he  professes  to  have  examined.  None  of  these  conveyances  of  real  estate  are  from 
Trustees  of  Catholic  Churches. 

Is  it  not  lamentable  to  think  that  a  man  who  has  been  Senator  of  the  State  of  New 
York,  should  so  misrepresent  the  records  of  entries  which  are  open  to  the  inspection  of  all, 
in  the  Register’s  office  ? 

But  the  question  is  not  whether  I  am  the  owner  of  some  portion  of  real  estate,  but 
whether  Mr.  Brooks  did  not  utter  a  falsehood  when  he  stated  that  the  value  of  my  property 
in  the  city  of  New  York  alone,  was  little  short  of  five  millions  of  dollars.  The  gentleman 
attempts  to  make  his  extract  honest-looking  by  describing  the  boundaries  of  each  section 
of  property  thus  conveyed  with  a  minuteness  very  uninteresting  to  the  public,  but  with  an 
exactitude  becoming  a  Conveyancer’s  apprentice.  One  would  suppose  that  he  imagined 
himself  copying  a  list  of  arrivals  at  the  hotels,  to  be  published  in  that  meanest  of  all 
printed  newspapers,  the  New  York  Express,  of  which  he  is  one  of  the  editors. 

Now  the  difference  between  the  value  of  the  eight  conveyances  cited  by  Mr.  Brooks, 
and  a  little  short  of  five  millions  of  dollars,  will  be  the  measure  of  the  difference  between 
the  truth  of  his  present  defence  and  the  falsehood  of  his  assertion  in  the  Senate  on  the  6th 
of  last  March.  I  suppose  the  gross  value  of  the  eight  conveyances  enumerated,  to  be  two 
hundred  thousand  dollars,  and  deduct  two  hundred  thousand  dollars  from  a  sum  little 
short  of  five  millions — say  four  millions  seven  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars,  there 
remains  a  difference  between  truth  and  falsehood  of  four  millions  five  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand  dollars,  which  Mr.  Brooks  has  still  to  account  for.  In  other  words,  by  a  strict 
arithmetical  calculation,  there  is  a  difference  of  two  thousand  two  hundred  and  seventy- 
five  per  cent  between  the  truth,  if  we  can  call  it  so,  of  Mr.  Brooks’s  defence  and  the 
original  falsehood  of  his  statement.  This  is  a  large  percentage,  but  Senator  Brooks  may 
yet  have  means  of  reducing  it.  So  far,  I  think,  it  is  quite  clear  that  the^charge  of  false¬ 
hood  No.  1  has  not  been  refuted.  However,  small  work  is  enough  for  the  Senator  during 
one  day,  and  as  he  signs  his  letter  “for  to-day,  yours  very  respectfully,”  we  must  wait  to 
see  what  he  has  in  reserve  for  to-morrow.  I  would  only  beg  him  not  to  attempt  filling  up 
his  schedule  by  enumerating  the  same  conveyance  twice  as  he  has  done  “  for  to-day.” 

Falsehood  No.  2,  as  found  in  his  speech  of  the  Cth  of  March,  is  that  among  the  convey¬ 
ances  there  are  numerous  transfers  from  trustees  to  John  Hughes.  Mr.  Brooks  has  done 
nothing  as  yet  by  way  of  attempt  to  sustain  this  falsehood,  lie  has  not  shown  one  single 
such  transfer,  and  accordingly  we  may  say  there  is  little  short  of  five  millions  per  cent, 
between  his  impotent  defence  and  his  false  assertion  on  the  Cth  of  March,  in  the  Senate  of 
New  York.  But,  we  must  be  indulgent,  aud  allow  him  time  to  examine  the  records  for 
them. 

The  statement  in  his  speech  that  we  marked  as  falsehood  No.  3,  that  some  of  the  parcels 
of  property  conveyed  to  me  cover  whole  squares  of  land,  Mr.  Brooks  “  for  to-day  ”  has 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN.  31 


not  had  time,  T  suppose,  to  indicate,  as  he  has  done  in  other  instances,  in  what  part  of  the 
city  all  these  certain  lots  or  whole  squares  of  land  lie,  and  are  situate.  But  we  must  give 
him  time.  He  has  made  ten  entries  for  the  newspapers  out  of  eight  in  the  Register’s 
hooks — and  to  a  man  who  can  do  this,  powers  of  originality  cannot  be  denied. 

On  the  whole  I  think  Mr.  Brooks  has  been  very  unsuccessful  in  his  attempt  to  substan¬ 
tiate  the  three  propositions  which  I  have  indicated  as  falsehoods  Nos.  1,  2  and  3. 

In  the  present  melancholy  predicament  in  which  Mr.  Brooks  has  contrived  to  place 
himself,  I  think  he  might  dispense  with  all  moralizing  as  regards  proprieties  of  language. 
They  are  out  of  season  for  his  pen.  He  is  not  satisfied  at  my  using  the  word  falsehood 
in  regard  to  any  of  his  assertions,  however  injurious  to  me  or  mischievous  to  others.  Now, 
falsehood  is  the  only  word  that  could  express  my  meaning.  To  gentlemen  of  more  refined 
sensibility  than  the  Senator,  a  gentler  term  would  have  been  sufficient  to  arouse  that 
quick  and.  honorable  resentment,  either  to  prove  the  assertion  advanced  or  to  apologize 
manfully  for  having  been  betrayed  into  it.  On  the  other  hand,  if  a  stronger  expression 
had  been  used,  it  would  have  implied  a  direct  violation  of  the  courtesies  of  life,  even  in 
regard  to  one  by  whom  truth  had  been  so  outraged.  Mr.  Brooks  is  very  severe  upon  me, 
as  he  imagines,  when  he  says  that  “  a  scullion  can  call  names,  and  use  epithets,  but  names 
and  epithets,”  says  Air.  Brooks,  “  are  not  truth.” — Fray  where  did  Mr.  Brooks  learn  this 
philosophy  ?  I  can  assure  him  that  names  and  epithets  rightly  applied  are  truth,  and 
oftentimes,  truth  in  its  condensed  form.  Nor  do  they  cease  to  be  truth  when  they  are 
rightly  employed  even  by  scullions.  The  only  philosophy  which  would  be  profitable  to 
Senator  Brooks,  is  that  by  which  in  ins  dealings  with  his  fellow  men,  whether  in  the 
Senate  Chamber  or  elsewhere,  he  should  take  those  precautions  becoming  an  honorable 
gentleman,  to  see  that  it  should  not  be  in  the  power  of  friend  or  foe,  of  scullion  or  pre¬ 
late,  to  apply  to  him  any  name  or  epithet  which  should  unfortunately  be  too  well  founded 
in  truth. 

I  confess  it  is  anything  but  pleasant  to  me  to  be  obliged  to  employ  them.  But  when 
Mr.  Brooks  has  so  gratuitously  gone  out  of  his  way  to  impress  upon  the  minds  of  his 
colleagues  in  the  Senate,  and  of  his  fellow  citizens  elsewhere,  the  belief  of  statements 
utterly  at  variance  with  truth,  he  cannot  deny  me  the  privilege  of  calling  upon  him  for 
the  proof  of  his  statements,  if  he  has  any,  and  of  stigmatizing  them  as  falsehoods,  if  he  has 
not. 

I  do  not  know  that  I  have  anything  more  to  say  until  Mr.  Brooks  brings  out  the  results 
of  another  day’s  investigation  of  the  records. 

f  JOHN,  Archbishop  op  New  Yoke. 

New  York ,  April  19, 1S55. 


TEMPORALITIES  OF  THE  ROMISH  CHURCH. 


To  the  Editors  of  the  JV.  Y.  Courier  <Sf  Enquirer : 

I  have  no  time  to  bandy  words  with  John  Hughes.  In  personality  and  vulgarity  he  has 
reached  an  elevation  to  which  I  do  not  aspire,  and  if  he  is  content  with  that  elevation,  and 
of  his  position  under  it,  as  the  Archbishop  of  a  powerful  Church,  I  am  more  than  content 
as  his  antagonist.  I  could  not  see  without  regret  a  friend  in  so  bad  a  position,  nor  desire 
to  put  an  enemy  in  a  worse  one.  I  shall  therefore  leave  all  that  part  of  the  Archbishop’s 
third  letter,  which  is  irrelevant  to  Church  Property,  and  the  facts  at  issue,  to  answer 
itself. 

My  statements  in  the  Senate  were  : 

First: — As  to  the  fact  of  the  property  owned  by  John  Hughes, — meaning  the  Arch¬ 
bishop. 

Secondly : — As  to  the  value  of  the  property  thus  held  by  John  Hughes, — meaning  the 
Archbishop. 

Thirdly: — As  to  the  transfers  from  Trustees  to  John  Hughes, — meaning  the  Arch¬ 
bishop. 

J  am  charged  with  falsehood  in  these,  my  several  asseverations. 

I  proposed  to  settle  the  question  of  fact,  as  to  the  veracity  of  the  spirit,  substance  and 
reality  of  my  statements,  and  the  truth  of  the  denial  of  his,  by  reference  to  an  umpire  of 


CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


32 


three  persons. — one  to  be  selected  by  each  of  ns,  and  one  by  these  jointly.  The  Arch¬ 
bishop  sneered  at  my  proposition,  and  declined  the  offer. 

The  Archbishop  conveyed  the  idea,  and  meant  to  convey  the  idea,  and  was  so  under¬ 
stood  by  the  public, — that  he  was  not  the  owner  of  Church  Property  in  this  city  and 
elsewhere.  Driven  from  this  position  by  the  records  transcribed  from  the  Register's  Office, 
showing  the  actual  conveyances  of  property  to  him,  he  now,  with  more  boldness  than  ever, 
admits  the  truth  of  what  I  said  on  this  point,  and  declares  that  the  question  between  us 
“  is  not  in  regard  to  any  such  thing  as  his  ownership  of  Real  Estate  Property  in  this 
city  !  He  adds  to  this  the  following  declaration  : — 

“  In  reference  to  my  ownership  of  real  estate  property,  as  Mr.  Brooks  calls  it,  there  is  no  question.  The 
title  of  many  Catholic  Churches  in  the  city  of  New  York  is  vested  in  me,  and  so  far  I  am  the  owner.  My 
intention,  even,  is  to  add  to  this  property  by  purchasing  such  additional  lots,  or  accepting  the  gift  of  them,  as 
I  may  find  from  time  to  time  to  be  desirable  for  the  purpose  of  providing  religious  instruction  for  the  wants 
of  the  Catholic  flock  committed  to  my  charge.  If  Mr.  Brooks  will  examine  the  records  of  the  city  of  New  York 
three  months  from  this  time,  he  will  probably  find  conveyances  made  to  me  by  parties  who  have  the  right  to 
sell  or  bestow  as  they  think  proper.” 

Truly — “  Truth  is  a  great  thing.”. 

But  I  am  also  charged  with  falsehood,  because  I  asserted  that  there  were  transfers  from 
Trustees  to  John  Hughes,  notwithstanding  I  gave  the  record  of  the  Transfer  of: — 

“  The  Trustees  of  St.  John's  Roman  Catholic  Church  to  John  Hughes.  Lease  999 
years  ;  Consideration,  ONE  CENT  a  yeab.” 

The  Archbishop  answers  me,  and  this  record,  thus  : 

“  The  first  conveyance  is  a  lease,  which  shows,  so  far  as  the  ownership  of  real  estate  is  concerned,  that  the 
very  heading  of  the  entries  is  not  correct. 

The  second  is  also  a  lease,  showing  the  same  thing. 

The  third  is  from  George  Wildes  and  Agnes  his  wife,  and  it  remains  for  Mr.  Brooks  to  show  that  Mr.  Wildes 
and  his  wife  had  been  Trustess  of  a  Catholic  Church.” 

What  will  lawyers, — what  will  laymen, — what  will  Christian  men, — think  of  such  a 
denial  as  this?  Is  not  a  lease  for  999  years  at  one  cent  a  year  in  all  true  senses,  moral 
and  legal,  equal  to  a  conveyance  in  fee  ?  A  mortgage  of  Real  Estate  property  is  a 
conveyance  in  a  more  limited  sense,  but  often  results  by  foreclosure  and  otherwise  to  a 
conveyance  in  fee.  How  dare  the  Archbishop  assert,  in  the  face  of  the  public  record  and 
of  all  truth — that  I  “  have  not  shown  one  single  transfer  from  Trustees  to  the  Bishop  ?” 

Let  me  add  one  more  extract  from  his  last  letter  : 

“No.  8  is  from  Mr.  Bartholomew  O’Connor,  who,  if  Mr.  Brooks  is  to  be  believed,  is  named  in  the  record  as 
Trustee  to  Christ  Church — the  truth  being  that  Mr.  Bartholomew  O’Connor  in  that  case  was  only  the 
Assignee  of  a  Bankrupt  board  of  Trustees." 

Here,  too,  is  an  unintentional  admission  that  John  Hughes  received  property  from 
Bartholomew  CEConnor,  “  the  Assignee  of  a  Bankrupt  Board  of  Trustees /”  It  came, 
by  admission,  from  Trustees,  through  the  Assignee,  to  John  Hughes!  Is  it  not  a  quibble 
beneath  an  Archbishop,  or  the  poorest  layman,  to  say  that  such  property  did  not  come 
from  Trustees? 

Let  me  quote  further  : 

“  Under  the  same  No.  9  we  find  immediately  following,  Andrew  Byrne,  Clergyman,  to  John  Hughes,  Bishop. 

“No.  10  is  a  specimen  of  Mr.  Brooks’  eloquent  brevity  of  style.  It  is  entitled  ‘Same  to  Same.’  Here 
again  Mr.  Brooks  duplicates  the  same  conveyance,  so  that  in  the  simple  copying  from  the  Registry,  by  way 
of  defence  for  older  falsehoods,  he  invents  new  ones,  and  in  two  instances  copies  the  same  conveyances — I 
suppose  by  way  of  guarding  against  mistakes.” 

It  is  the  Archbishop  who  duplicates — not  I.  It  is  the  Archbishop  also  who  mistakes  the 
record — not  I.  If  he  will  look  again,  he  will  see  that  there  were  two  transfers  to  him 
from  Andrew  Byrne — that  one  conveyance  covered  part  of  the  Mangle  Minthorue’s 
Estate,  and  conveyed  three  lots  of  property,  and  that  the  second  conveyance  was  of  two 
parcels  of  property,  and  one  of  the  Henry  Eckford  Estate. 

The  Archbishop  owes  to  himself,  if  not  to  me  and  the  public,  an  apology  for  this  erro¬ 
neous  (I  will  not  say  false)  record,  and  I  owe  it  to  the  public  to  state  that  a  transfer  of 
property  was  twice  cited  by  me  by  mistake,  because  it  was  so  written,  and  had  the  con¬ 
veyance  of  William  C.  Pickersgill,  recorded  Feb.  Cth,  1845,  and  of  George  Wildes, 
September  23d,  1845.  The  one  was  probably  a  conveyance  by  Attorney  in  February,  and 
the  other  in  person  in  the  following  September.  John  Hughes  would,  therefore,  seem  to 
have  had  two  deeds  of  the  same  property,  even  though  he  does  not  know  it. 

But  I  have  not  done  with  my  record  of  property  or  values.  I  have  only,  indeed,  given 
the  beginning  of  the  end. 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN. 


33 


I  do  not  wish  to  pry  unnecessarily  into  the  temporalities  of  the  Archbishop  in  this  city 
and  throughout  his  Diocese,  but  his  plump  denials  make  it  necessary  to  do  so  in  order  to 
convict  him  of  the  want  of  veracity  in  his  accusations  against  me.  It  is  no  slight  thing 
to  charge  a  man  with  falsehood,  and  if  the  war  is  carried  into  Africa,  as  I  intend  it  shall 
be,  in  my  prosecutions  of  this  investigation,  the  Archbishop  has  himself  to  thank  for  com¬ 
pelling  an  exposure  of  his  affairs,  which,  but  for  his  denials,  might  never  have  come  to 
the  light  of  day. 

From  the  “  Metropolitan  and  Catholic  Almanac,  and  Laity’s  Directory  of  1855  ” — pub¬ 
lished  at  Baltimore,  by  Lucas,  Brothers,  and  purporting  to  be  “  sold  by  all  Catholic 
Booksellers,”  I  find  that  in  this  city,  and.  a  few  of  the  River  towns,  38  in"  all,  there  are 
280,000  Roman  Catholics,  55  Churches  and  Chapels  (27  of  which  are  in  this  city),  30 
Stations,  82  Clergymen  on  the  mission,  26  otherwise  employed,  besides  Asylums,  Semina¬ 
ries,  Literary  Institutions,  &c.  Among  these  are  : — 

The  Redemptorist  Convent,  3d  street. 

College  of  St.  Francis  Xavier,  West  15  th  street. 

Community  of  Brothers,  &c*.,  Canal  street. 

Academy  of  the  Holy  Infant  Jesus,  Manhattanville. 

Convent  of  the  Sacred  Heart,  near  Manhattanville. 

Sacred  Heart  Academy,  near  Harlem. 

Convent  of  Sisters  of  Mercy,  Houston  and  Mulberry. 

Academy  of  St.  Vincent,  107th  street. 

St.  Mary’s  School,  East  Broadway. 

The  Archconfraternity  of  the  Immaculate  Heart  of  Mary. 

The  Confraternity  of  the  Rosary,  &c.,  &c. 

This  record,  with  many  other  facts  appended  thereto,  the  book  tells  us,  was  furnished 
from  the  Most  Rev.  the  Archbishop. 

■•The  Diocese  of  Brooklyn  ”  has  fifteen  Churches  in  the  city  of  Brooklyn,  and  twenty- 
four  on  Long  Island,  besides  eleven  Stations,  thirty  Clergymen,  the  School  of  St. 
Alphonsus,  conducted  by  the  Nuns  of  the  Order  of  St.  Dominic,  and  other  institutions 
under  the  care  of  “  the  Sisters  of  Charity  ”  and  “Brothers  of  the  Christian  Schools.” 

The  dioceses  of  Albany  (87  Churches)  and  Buffalo  (100  Churches)  are  larger  as  to  the 
number  of  Churches,  some  of  which  are  gorgeous  and  costly  edifices.  The  rule  there,  as 
here,  is  to  place  the  temporalities  of  the  Church  in  the  hands  of  the  Bishops. 

I  am  not  complaining  of  all  this,  or  of  the  Roman  Catholics,  or  of  their  faith.  I  am 
not  even  complaining  of  the  numerical  force  or  great  riches  which  make  up  the 
temporalities  of  the  Romish  power  in  the  city  and  State.  I  am  showing  in  whose  hands, 
and  under  w'hose  control  most  of  these  temporalities  are. 

On  the  matter  of  values,  too,  I  shall  not  fall  much,  if  any,  short  of  the  amount  men¬ 
tioned  in  the  Senate  of  New  York  on  the  6th  of  March  last.  With  such  estates  as  these  at 
Fordham,  costing  seventy  thousand  dollars,  and  now  worth  four  or  five  hundred  thousand 
dollars, — as  the  McGowan  property  on  the  middle  Island  Road,  and  known  as  McGowan’s 
Pass,  the  Jacob  Lorilland  property,  of  one  hundred  acres, — the  valuable  property,  com¬ 
mencing  on  51st  street,  opposite  the  Deaf  and  Dumb  Institution,  added  to  church 
property,  it  will  be  easy  to  count  up  millions  in  present  value. 

One  word  just  here,  of  this  last  piece  of  property. 

When  the  directors  of  the  Deaf  and  Dumb  Institution  earnestly  begged  the  Common 
Council  of  this  city,  and  as  a  matter  of  public  charity  to  enable  them  the  better  to  educate 
the  Deaf  and  Dumb  of  the  City  and  State,  for  a  part  of  the  tract  of  land,  at  a  nominal 
rent,  now  occupied  by  them,  they  were  refused.  They  had  to  pay  $28,000  to  the  Corpo¬ 
ration  for  the  balance  of  a  block  between  49th  and  50th  street,  and  the  balance  of  a  block 
between  48th  and  49th  streets.  The  Common  Council  so  decreed,  and  the  Mayor  so 
approved.  A  prayer  from  Protestants,  for  a  great  and  noble  Christian  charity  benefit- 
ting  all  sects,  was  met  by  adverse  rejoorts  and  adverse  acts,  even  when  the  Common 
Council  of  the  City,  for  one  dollar,  conveyed  to  John  Hughes,  President,  and  V.  O. 
Donnelly,  Secretary,  lor  the  Roman  Catholic  Orphan  Asylum,  one  of  the  most  valuable 
pieces  of  land  in  the  city,  and  on  a  square  quite  large  enough  for  that  “  Erastus  Brooks’ 
Library,”  which  the  Archbishop  now  owes  the  City  of  New  York.  The  Deaf  and  Dumb 
were  compelled  to  pay,  for  a  much  smaller  piece  of  ground.  $28,000.  The  Archbishop 
and  the  Roman  Catholics,  for  an  estate  bounded  by  the  Fifth  avenue,  51st  and  52d  streets, 
paid  the  sum  of  one  dollar  !  The  particulars  of  all  this  may  be  found  in  the  Book  of 
Deeds,  marked  A.,  page  271,  and  those  who  are  more  curious  may  turn  to  a  Common 
Council  report,  where  they  will  find  the  rejection  of  the  prayer  of  Protestants  for  the  Deaf 
and  Dumb,  and  the  grant  of  the  prayers  of  the  Roman  Catholics.  The  city  property  thus 
given  for  one  dollar  is  worth  to-day  from  $150,000  to  250,000,  and  in  view  of  its  value  I 
cite  these  not  very  pleasant  facts  for  those  who  made  the  grant  in  the  one  case,  and 
declined  it  in  the  other. 

The  Fordham  property  also  is  a  princely  estate,  owned  by  John  Hughes.  The  deeds,  I 


34  CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


understand,  arc  in  his  name.  Negotiations  connected  with  the  property  are  conducted  in 
his  name.  I  have  had  the  copy  of  one  before  me,  which  begins  thus  ; 


“This  indenture,  made  on  the  1st  of  December,  1S54,  between  Most  Reverend  John  Hughes,  Archbishop  of 
New  York,  and  the  Harlem  Railroad  Company,”  &c., 

And  a  very  funny  document  it  is  for  “  John  Hughes,  his  heirs  and  assignees” 

One  article  covenants  that  he,  his  heirs  or  assignees  shall  have  a  free  pass  over  the 
Harlem  Railroad ,  with  fifty  pounds  of  Baggage  daily.  If  the  Bishop  does  not  choose 
to  avail  himself  of  this  liberal  grant, — for  I  learn  from  all  quarters  that  he  is  good  at 
driving  a  bargain, — he  is  to  name  the  person  who  shall  receive  the  benefit.  The  dead¬ 
head  system  is  thus  formally  covenanted  for  over  a  public  highway  between  Fordham  and 
New  York,  by  the  distinguished  “fJohn  Archbishop  of  the  Province  of  New  York.” 

But  all  this  is  only  preliminary  to  more  important  matter  which  follows,  and  in  con¬ 
tinuation  of  the  record  I  cite  the  following  : 


CONVEYANCES  TO  JOHN  HUGHES. 


K UMBER  ELEVEN. 


Zacharias  Kuntze, 
to 

John  Hughes. 


1  Date  of  Con.,  March  24th,  1S48. 
[  Recorded  in  liber  500,  p.  509, 
May  10th,  1S48.  Considera- 
J  tion,  one  dollar. 


erly  and  parallel  with  Avenue  B  24  feet  4  inches, 
thence  running  west  and  parallel  with  8th  street,  100 
feet  to  avenue  B,  and  thence  running  north  along 
Avenue  B,  24  feet  4  inches,  to  place  of  beginning. 

NUMBER  FOURTEEN. 


All  and  singular  those  two  several  lots,  pieces  or 
parcels  of  iand,  situated,  lying  and  being  on  the  N. 
side  of  31st  street,  between  6th  and  7th  avenues,  in 
16th  (late  12th)  Ward  of  City  of  New  York,  and  laid 
down  and  distinguished  upon  a  certain  map — is  an¬ 
nexed  to  the  report  of  Fred.  DePeyster  and  others, 
commissioners  appointed  by  order  of  Court  Chan¬ 
cery  of  State  of  New  York,  in  a  certain  suit  before 
Vice  Chancellor  of  1st  Circuit,  brought  by  Moulton 
Bullock,  Compt.  agt.  Thomas  Burlock,  and  other  de¬ 
fendants,  to  make  partition  of  certain  lands  and 
premises  held  in  common  between  the  parties,  among 
which  were  lands  and  premises  laid  down  on  said 
map— on  which  map  the  said  2  several  lots,  pieces  or 
parcels  of  land,  hereby  intended  to  be  conveyed,  are 
known  and  distinguished  as  numbers  7  and  40.  The 
lots  in  dimension,  when  taken  together,  are  speci¬ 
fied  on  said  map  to  be  159  feet  6%  inches  in  depth 
on  the  westerly  side  thereof,  and  25  feet  width  in  the 
rear,  and  165  feet  and  1  inch  in  depth  on  easterly 
side  ;  said  2  lots,  pieces  or  parcels  of  land,  lying  and 
being  on  easterly  side  of  and  next  adjoining  to  pre¬ 
mises  now  occupied  for  a  Catholic  Church. 


NUMBER  TWELVE. 


James  Foster,  Contractor,  | 
and  Emilia,  his  wife, 
to 

John  Hughes.  ■ 


Date  of  Con.,  Feb.  21st, 
1S4S.  Recorded  in  li¬ 
ber  502,  p.  241,  Feb.  29, 
1S4S.  Consideration, 
$4,400. 


AH  those  2  certain  lots  of  land  situate,  lying  and 
being  in  11th  Ward  of  City  of  New  York,  on  S.  E. 
corner  of  Sth  street  and  avenue  B  ;  taken  together, 
bounded  and  described  as  follows :  Beginning  at  the 
point  formed  by  the  intersection  of  the  southerly 
side  of  Sth  street  with  the  easterly  side  of  avenue  B, 
running  thence  southerly  along  the  E.  line  of  avenue 
B  4S  feet  and  S  inches,  thence  E.  on  a  line  parallel 
with  S.  side  of  Sth  street  100  feet,  thence  N.  in  a  line 
parallel  with  easterly  line  of  avenue  B  4S  feet  S 
inches,  thence  westerly  along  southerly  side  of  Sth 
street  100  feet  to  place  of  beginning. 


NUMBER  THIRTEEN. 

Sarah  Remsen  J  Date  of  Con.  May  1, 1S48.  Record- 
to  V  cd  in  liber  503,  p.  542,  May  2, 1S4S. 
John  Hughes.  )  Consideration,  $2,175. 

All  that  certain  lot,  piece  or  parcel  of  land,  situ¬ 
ate,  lying  and  being  in  the  11th  Ward  of  the  City  of 
New  1  ork,  on  E.  side  of  avenue  B,  between,  7th  and 
Sth  streets,  in  said  city,  and  which  is  bounded  and 
described  as  follows,  that  is  to  say:  beginning  at  a 
point  on  easterly  side  of  avenue  B,  distant  73  feet  2 
inches  southerly  from  southeast  corner  of  avenue  B 
and  Sth  street,  and  running  thence  easterly  and  par¬ 
allel  with  Sth  street,  100  feet,  thence  running  south¬ 


Geo.  W.  Hall,  of  Buffalo, 
to 

John  Hughes. 


I  Date  of  Con.,  Mayl,lS43. 
|  Record,  June  19,  1S4S, 
|  in  liber  50S,  p.  9S.  Con- 
J  sideration,  $10. 


All  that  certain  lot,  piece  or  parcel  of  ground, 
situate,  lying  and  being  in  the  8th  Ward  of  the  City 
of  New  York,  on  the  west  side  of  Mulberry  street, 
known  and  distinguished  on  a  certain  map  or  chart 
thereof  made  by  Casimer  II.  Goerch,  late  City  Sur¬ 
veyor,  by  part  of  lot  number  S2 — bounded  eastwardly 
in  front  on  Mulberry  street  aforesaid,  northerly  by 
lot  No.  S3,  westerly,  in  rear,  by  lot  No.  108,  and 
southerly  by  remaining  part  of  said  lot  No.  S2.  Con¬ 
taining  in  width  in  front  25  feet  2  inches,  and  in 
rear  24  feet,  and  in  length  120  feet. 

NUMBER  FIFTEEN. 


James  Rea,  of  Macon,  Georgia, 
to 

John  Hughes. 


1  Recorded  in  liber 
|  50S,  p.100.  June 

f  19,  1S4S.  Con- 
j  sideration,  $1. 


All  and  singular,  the  one  equal  undivided  fifth 
part  of  the  following  lot,  piece  or  parcel  of  land,  with 
buildings  thereon,  situate,  lying  and  being  in  the 
14th  (formerly  Sth)  Ward  of  the  City  of  New  York, 
and  late  part  or  parcel  of  the  estate  of  Alderman 
Dickerson,  deceased,  known  and  distinguished  on  a 
certain  map  or  chart  thereof,  made  by  Casimer  H. 
Goerch,  late  City  Surveyor,  bearing  date  Feb.  12, 
1795,  by  lot  No.  S4,  bounded  and  containing  as  fol¬ 
lows,  to  wit: — Beginning  at  a  point  on  south  side  of 
Houston  street,  distant  116  feet  and  6  inches  wester¬ 
ly  from  southwest  corner  of  said  Houston  and  Mul¬ 
berry  streets,  and  running  thence  east  along  said 
Houston  street,  about  40  feet  11  inches  to  laud  for¬ 
merly  belonging  to  John  r.  Schemerhorn,  thence 
running  east  along  S.  line  of  said  Schemerhorn  s 
land,  about  75  feet  S  inches  to  Mulberry  street,  afore¬ 
said,  thence  running  S.  along  said  Mulberry  street, 
27  feet  6  inches  to  N.  line  of  No.  S3  on  said  map, 
thence  W.  along  N.  line  of  said  lot  No.  S3, 120  feet 
to  W.  line  of  said  lot  No.  S4,  thence  N.  along  said  W. 
line  of  lot  No.  S4,  20  feet  3  inches  to  place  of  begin¬ 
ning. 


NUMBER  SIXTEEN. 


Geo.  W.  Hall  and  his  wife, 

Amelia  W., 
to 

John  Hughes. 

All  those  6  certain  lots,  pieces,  parcels  of  land 
with  the  buildings  thereon  situated,  lying  and  being 
in  the  14th  Ward  of  City  of  New  York,  on  SW.  cor¬ 
ner  of  Houston  and  Mulberry  streets,  in  said  city, 
bounded  and*lescribed  as  follows Beginning  at  a 


>aie  cm  i_on.,  April  im, 
1S43.  Record  in  liber 
608,  p.  101,  June  19, 
1848.  Consideration, 
$32,700. 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN. 


35 


point  forming  the  intersection  of  SW.  corner  of  Hous¬ 
ton  and  Mulberry  streets,  aforesaid,  running  thence 
S.  along  W.  side  of  Mulberry  street,  to  the  land  late 
belonging  to  Moses  Leon,  now  deceased,  65  feet  and 
9  inches,  thence  W.  along  said  last-mentioned  land, 
120  feet  to  land  formerly  belonging  to  Luke  Usher*, 
thence  N.  along  said  last-mentioned  land  and  land 
of  Geo.  Hayden  Lesse  to  Houston  street,  aforesaid, 
45  feet,  thence  easterly  along  said  Houston  street  116 
feet  and  6  inches  to  place  of  beginning.  Also,  all 
those  certain  pieces  or  parcels  of  land  beginning  at 
a  point  on  W.  side  of  said  Mulberry  street,  formed 
by  intersection  of  said  W.  side  of  Mulberry  street 
with  S.  line  of  land  late  of  Leon,  deceased,  and 
which  point  is  supposed  to  be  distant  S.  from  the 
SW.  corner  of  said  Houston  and  Mulberry  streets 
90  feet  and  11  inches,  thence  along  western  side  of 
said  Mulberry  street  48  feet  and  2  inches  to  along, 
and  including  the  land  conveyed  by  Nathan  Bangs, 
and  others,  executors,  &c.,  and  Elizabeth  Sanford,  to 
said  Geo.  W.  Hall,  by  deed  dated  April  15,  1836 ; 
thence  west  along  said  southern  boundary  of  last- 
mentioned  land  125  feet  to  land  formerly  belonging 
to  Wm.  Jones  ;  thence  north  45  feet  and  6  inches  to 
said  land  late  of  Moses  Leon,  deceased  ;  thence  east 
along  southern  boundary  of  last-mentioned  land  120 
feet  to  said  Mulberry  street,  the  place  of  beginning. 

NUMBER  SEVENTEEN. 

* 

George  Washington  Coster,'!  Date  of  Con.,  July  19, 
and  [  1848.  Recorded  in 

Henry  Arnold  Coster,  y  liber,  510,  p.  60,  July 
to  I  28,  1848.  Consider- 

John  Hughes.  J  ation,  $11  64-100. 

All  that  certain  strip,  piece,  or  parcel  of  land, 
situate,  lying,  and  being  on  east  side  of  Avenue  B, 

*  commencing  at  a  point  on  east  side  of  said  Avenue 
B,  distant  118  feet  8  inches  southerly  from  the  south¬ 
east  corner  of  Sth  street  and  said  Avenue  B,  and 
running  thence  east,  and  parallel  with  said  Sth  street, 
100  feet;  thence  running  south,  and  parallel  with 
said  Avenue  B,  2  inches;  thence  running  west,  and 
parallel  with  said  Sth  street,  100  feet,  to  said  Avenue 
B ;  thence  running  northerly  along  easterly  side  of 
said  Avenue  B,  2  inches,  to  place  of  beginning. 


ning  east  at  right  angles  to  Madison  Avenue,  along 

grounds  now  or  late  belonging  to - Sanler.  Same 

as  Release  of  Dower. 


NUMBER  NINETEEN. 


John  J.  V.  Wester-  \  Date  of  Con.,  June  14th,  1S49. 
velt,  Sheriff,  (  Recorded  in  liber  522,  page 

to  f  444,  June  loth,  1S49.  Con- 

John  Hughes.  )  sideration,  $950. 

Four  certain  lots  of  ground,  situate,  lying,  and 
being  in  the  12th  Ward  of  the  City  of  New  York,  and 
known  and  distinguished  on  a  map  of  the  property 
of  Peter  Poillon,  made  by  J.  F.  Bridges,  City  Sur¬ 
veyor,  bearing  date  Sept.  1826,  and  now  on  file  in 
Register’s  Office,  as  lots  numbers  541,  542,  and  543, 
and  taken  together,  are  bounded  as  follows :  North, 
by  the  central  line  between  117th  and  USth  streets ; 
west,  by  a  line  parallel  to  4th  Avenue,  on  the  east 
side  thereof,  160  feet  therefrom;  southerly,  in  front, 
by  HTth  street;  and  east,  by  a  line  drawn  parallel 
to  4th  Avenue,  on  the  east  side  thereof,  at  a  dis¬ 
tance  of  260  feet  therefrom  ;  each  of  said  lots  being 
25  feet  in  width,  in  front  and  rear,  and  about  100  feet 
deep  on  each  side,  with  the  church  edifice  erected 
thereon. 


NUMBER  TWENTY. 


Richard  Kein, 
Clergyman, 
to 

John  Hughes. 


Date  of  Con.,  Dec.  1, 1848.  Record 
in  liber  527,  p.  279,  Sept.  19, 1849. 
Consideration,  $2,000. 


All  that  certain  lot,  piece,  or  parcel  of  land,  situ¬ 
ate,  lying,  and  being  in  the  11th  Ward  of  the  City  of 
New  York,  and  is  bounded  and  described  as  follows, 
that  is  to  say  :  Beginning  at  a  point  on  east  side  of 
Avenue  B,  distant  48  feet  8  inches,  more  or  less, 
south  from  the  south  line  of  Sth  Avenue,  and  run¬ 
ning  thence  east,  and  parallel  with  8th  street,  100 
feet ;  thence  running  south,  and  parallel  with  Ave¬ 
nue  B,  24  feet  4  inches,  more  or  less;  thence  run¬ 
ning  west,  and  parallel  with  8th  street,  100  feet,  to 
Avenue  B  ;  and  thence  running  north  along  Avenue 
B,  24  feet  4  inches,  more  or  less,  to  place  of  beginning. 


NUMBER  TWENTY-ONE. 


NUMBER  EIGHTEEN. 


Mary  Ann  Gaffney,  ' 
Bernard  Gaffney, 
and  Arthur  J.  Donnelly, 
Executors, 
to 

John  Hughes. 


Date  of  Con.,  Nov.  8, 1848. 
Recorded  in  liber,  510, 
■  p.  532,  Nov.  14th,  1848. 
Consideration,  $10,622, 
37-100. 


All  those  certain  lots,  pieces,  or  parcels  of  ground, 
situated,  lying,  and  being  in  the  18th  Ward  of  the 
City  of  New  York,  on  the  east  side  of  Madison  Ave¬ 
nue  and  south  side  of  27th  street,  and  taken  together, 
bounded  as  follows,  viz. :  Beginning  at  a  point  east 
side  of  Madison  Avenue,  distant  98  feet  9  inches 
south  from  the  south  side  of  27th  street,  thence  run- 


Gregory  Dillon  )  Date  of  Con.,  Aug.  20th,  1S50.  Re- 
to  >  corded  in  liber  551,  p.  291,  Aug. 
John  Hughes.  )  21, 1850.  Consideration,  $10. 

All  those  5  certain  lots,  pieces,  or  parcels  of  land, 
together  with  the  building  thereon,  known  as  St. 
Peter’s  Church,  situated,  &c.,  in  3d  Ward  of  City  of 
New  York,  contiguous  to  each  other,  being  part  of 
the  lands  commonly  called  and  known  by  the  name 
of  the  Church  Farm,  distinguished  on  map  thereof 
by  numbers  85,  86,  87,  88,  89 ;  bounded  N.  by  Barclay 
street,  W.  by  Church  street,  and  S.  and  E.  by  the 
other  lots,  part  of  said  Church  Farm;  the  whole 
being  in  extent,  towards  Barclay  street,  100  feet ;  to¬ 
wards  Church  street,  125  feet ;  on  S.  side  100  feet, 
and  on  E.  side,  125  feet. 


It  is  to  be  lemembered  that  the  value  of  property,  at  the  time  these  conveyance  were 
made,  is  very  different  from  its  value  now.  What  cost  $70,000  a  few  years  ago,  is  worth 
$400,000  now ;  and  what  cost  $10,000  then  has  sold  for  $40,000  since.  Let  the  Archbis¬ 
hop  possess,  his  soul  m  patience.  Before  the  end,  he  shall  hear  not  only  of  his  dealing 
with  the  living,  but  with  the  dead,  iu  whose  decease  and  burial  he  profits. 

Very  respectfully,  for  to-day,  I  am  yours,  &c., 


New  York,  April,  20th,  1855. 


ERASTUS  BROOKS. 


CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


SENATOR  CROOKS  MULTIPLYING  THE  AWKWARDNESS  OF  HIS  POSITION. 

To  the  Editors  of  the  Courier  and  Enquirer  : 

There  is  a  moral  of  general  utility  involved  and  in  process  of  increasing  development 
in  the  controversy  between  Senator  Brooks  and  myself,  which  the  public  will  do  well  to 
store  away  in  its  memory.  If  I  dare  make  a  suggestion  for  the  benefit  of  the  rising 
generation  who  are  now  receiving  instruction  in  the  public  schools.  I  would  urge  the 
teachers  to  impress  upon  the  children  the  possibility  of  their  giving  utterance  to  some 
falsehood, — since  to  err  is  human,— but  to  caution  them  at  the  same  time  against  the 
culpability  and  dangers  of  attempting  to  maintain  a  falsehood,  if  by  any  misfortune  they 
should  have  asserted  it.  And  as  an  illustration,  they  might  say  to  the  classes — “  Just  look 
at  the  condition  of  Senator  Brooks,  who  is  actually  in  this  predicament.”  The  Senator 
begins  his  unfortunate  defence  in  the  Courier  and  Enquirer  of  this  morning,  by  the  fol¬ 
lowing  assertion  : 

“  My  statements  in  the  Senate  were  : 

“  First. — As  to  the  fact  of  the  property  owned  by  John  Hughes — meaning  the  Archbishop. 

“  Secondly. — As  to  the  value  of  the  property  thus  held  by  John  Hughes,  meaning  the  Archbishop. 

“  Hardly. — As  to  their  transfer  from  Trustees  to  John  Hughes — meaning  the  Archbishop.” 

He  adds  :  “  I  am  charged  with  falsehood  in  these  my  several  asseverations.” 

It  is  not  true  that  these  were  Mr.  Senator  Brooks’  statements  in  the  Senate.  It  is  not 
true  that  Mr.  Brooks  has  been  charged  with  falsehood  in  these  his  several  statements.  Mr. 
Brooks  knows  that  neither  of  these  assertions  of  his  is  true.  And  Mr.  Brooks  knows  that 
he  shall  be  my  witness  to  prove  that  he  knows  that  they  are  not  true. 

In  his  speech  in  the  Senate,  after  having  professed  to  make  himself  acquainted  with  the 
amount  of  property  held  by  John  Hughes,  in  this  city,  as  taken  from  the  Register's  office, 
he  goes  on  to  say  : 

“  I  suppose  its  value  to  be,  in  New  York  alone,  not  much  short  of  five  millions  of  dollars.  So  far  as  this 
property  being  held,  when  in  Churches,  by  Trustees,  there  are  numerous  transfers  from  Trustees  to  John 
Hughes.  Beginning  with  February,  1S42,  and  continuing  through  1S54,  a  friend  of  mine  copied  fifty-eight  en¬ 
tries  of  as  many  distinct  parcels  of  property  made  in  the  name  of  land  for  John  Hughes,  all  in  the  space  of 
twelve  years  !— Not  to  John  Hughes,  Bishop,  not  to  John  Hughes,  Arch+Bishop  (sic.),  nor  to  John  Hughes 
as  trustee  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  but  to  plain  John  Hughes  in  his  propria  persona.  Some  of  these 
parcels  cover  whole  squares  of  land,  and  nearly  all  of  them  are  of  great  value.” — Speech  of  Mr.  Brooks 
delivered  in  the  Senate  of  New  York  on  the  Mh  March ,  1S55. 

When  Mr.  Brooks  attempts  in  his  letter  of  this  morning  to  substitute  another  set  of 
statements  instead  of  these,  and  declares  them  to  be  the  statements  made  by  him  in  the 
Senate,  he  does  that  which  an  honorable  man,  with  the  knowledge  which  he  has,  would 
have  shrunk  from  doing.  He  furnishes,  like  a  broken-down  witness  under  cross-examina¬ 
tion,  the  very  testimony  which  is  fatal  to  himself. 

The  charge  of  falsehood  was  made  against  his  statements  as  found  in  his  speech,  and 
not  against  the  silly  subterfuge  of  statements  as  set  down  in  his  letter  of  this  morning. 
Having  disposed  of  this  point  in  which  Mr.  Brooks  is  witness  against  himself,  we  must 
proceed  to  examine  the  result  of  his  labors  in  trying  to  make  up  for  the  two  thousand 
two  hundred  and  seventy-five  per  ct.  which  his  account,  after  his  first  day's  investigation  of 
the  Records,  left  as  a  balance  to  be  still  accounted  for,  betwen  the  truth  of  his  defence 
and  the  falsehoods  of  his  speech. 

I  shall  endeavor  to  allow  a  great  many  trifling  things  to  pass  to  the  credit  of  Mr.  Brooks, 
so  as  to  relieve  him,  if  possible,  from  the  weight  of  burden  ander  which  he  labors.  He 
begins  by  alleging  that  he  is  borne  out  in  regard  to  conveyances  from  trustees  by  the 
fact  that  the  trustees  of  St.  John’s  Roman  Catholic  Church  gave  me  a  lease  of  their  prop¬ 
erty.  Now  one  of  two  thiDgs  : — A  man  who  has  a  lease  is  either  the  owner  of  the  prop¬ 
erty  or  he  is  not.  If  lie  is  not  the  owner,  the  property  has  not  been  conveyed  to  him  in 
the  sense  of  Mr.  Brooks’  statement,  that  numerous  transfers  of  property  were  made  to  me 
by  trustees :  and,  in  that  event,  Mr.  Brooks  has  failed  to  prove  his  assertion.  He  has  only 
proved  that  I  am  the  tenant  of  the  trustees  of  St.  John's  Church  ;  and,  if  he  thinks  this 
warrants  his  statement,  then  a  lease,  according  to  Mr.  Brooks,  will  be  equivalent  to  a  deed 
in  tee  simple.  This  is  Radicalism.  Fourierism,  such  as  has  not  been  put  forth  before.  Blit 
besides,  it  so  happens  that  this  St.  John’s  Roman  Catholic  Church  has  been  always,  and  now 
is  managed,  in  its  temporal  afiairs,  by  lay  trustees,  and  the  Archbishop  has  never  meddled 
with  them,  except  when  they  attempted,  once  or  twice,  to  disregard  the  discipline  of  the 
diocese  in  other  respects. 

The  next  pretended  trustee  is  Mr.  Bartholomew  O'Connor,  who  became  legal  assignee  of 
one  of  our  bankrupt  boards  of  lay  trustees,  and  who  transferred  it  according  to  law,  and 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN.  37 


entirely  in  bis  civil  capacity  as  an  agent  of  the  law.  The  Archbishop  purchased  it  at  the 
highest  price  it  would  bring,  paid  its  debts,  and  preserved  it  for  the  use  of  religion  to  the 
conoregation  by  whose  exertions  it  had  been  built,  and  by  whose  lay  trustees  it  would  have 
been  ruined,  if  the  Archbishop  had  not  taken  it  in  hand. 

Mr.  Brooks  demurs  as  to  the  question  of  conveyance  from  Andrew  Byrne,  and  denies 
that  be  duplicated.  But  he  corrects  his  error  in  a  way  which  surprises  me.  He  says  now 
that  the  transfers  were  made,  not  by  Andrew  Byrne  to  me,  but  by  me  to  Andrew  Byrne. 
His  words  are  : — “  If  he,  the  Archbishop,  will  look  again,  he  will  see  that  there  were  two 
transfers  from  him  ”  (the  Archbishop)  “  to  Andrew  Byrne.”  Now,  if  this- be  so,  it  will  tell 
against  Mr.  Brooks,  and  actually  increase,  instead  of  diminish  the  per-centage  of  difference 
between  the  truth  of  his  defence,  and  the  falsehoods  of"  his  speech  in  the  Senate.  He 
acknowledges,  howeverj  that  in  the  case  of  Geo.  Wildes,  and  Agnes  his  wife,  he,  Senator 
Brooks,  did  duplicate,  and  counted  the  same  transfer  twice  ;  and  in  reference  to  this,  I  am 
proud  to  see  him  acknowledge  the  truth.  He  says : 

“I  owe  it  to  the  public  to  state  that  a  transfer  of  property  was  twice  cited  by  me  by  mistake,  because  it  was 
so  written.” 

Well,  well,  whether  it  was  so  written  or  not,  this  little  confession  will  do  him  no  harm. 

But,  unfortunately,  Mr.  Brooks  shows  scanty  signs  of  penitence;  for  although  he 
acknowledges  that  he  duplicated,  he  does  not  omit  to  add  the  false  citation  to  the  number 
of  entries.  In  his  preceding  letter,  the  conveyances,  according  to  Mr.  Brooks,  amounted 
to  ten.  Now  strike  out  from  ten,  one  entry  which  he  duplicated,  and  let  us  suppose  him 
correct  in  stating  as  he  does  in  his  letter  of  this  date,  that  two  other  entries  which  he  had 
adduced  as  from  Andrew  Byrne  to  John  Hughes,  were  in  reality  from  John  Hughes  to 
Andrew  Byrne,  his  ten  entries  of  yesterday  are  reduced  to  seven  “  for  to-day.”  Still, 
after  acknowledging  these  mistakes,  Mr.  Brooks  dashes  on,  and  counts  his  conveyance  for 
to-day  at  No.  11  instead  of  No.  8.  This  is  from  Zachariah  Kuntz  to  John  Hughes,  and  is, 
no  doubt,  the  ground  on  which  the  St.  Francis’  Church,  in  31st  street,  now  stands. 

No.  12,  according  to  Mr.  Brooks,  but  No.  9,  according  to  his  corrected  statement,  is  from 
James  Foster  and  his  wife  to  John  Hughes.  The  Senator  does  not  say  that  Mr.  and  Mrs. 
Foster  had  been  Trustees  of  a  Catholic  church. 

No.  13  is  Sarah  Remsen  to  John  Hughes. 

No.  14  is  George  W.  Hall,  of  Buffalo,  to  John  Hughes. 

No.  15  is  from  James  Rae,  of  Macon,  Georgia,  to  John  Hughes. 

No.  16.  George  W.  Hall  to  John  Hughes. 

No.  17.  G.  W.  and  H.  A.  Costar  to  John  Hughes. 

Here  I  must  pause  to  point  out  an  instance  of  the  exceeding  exactness  and  scrupulosity 
with  which  our  Senator  describes  the  dimensions  of  this  particular  lot.  He  says  it  is 
between  7th  and  8th  streets,  and  is  “  one  hundred  feet  by  two  inches .”  See  what  it  is  to 
be  exact.  A  few  more  discoveries  of  this  kind  will  mount  up  towards  the  five  millions. 
One  hundred  feet  by  two  inches ! 

No.  18.  Mary  Anne  Gaffney,  B.  Gaffney,  and  A.  J.  Donnelly  to  John  Hughes. 

No.  19.  John  Y.  Westervelt,  sheriff,  to  John  Hughes. 

No.  20.  Richard  Ivein,  clergyman,  to  John  Hughes. 

No.  21.  Gregory  Dillon  to  John  Hughes. 

Thus  closes  Senator  Brooks’  second  day’s  labor  in  finding  out  the  entries  of  property 
conveyed  to  me.  I  shall  not  examine  them  minutely,  but  just  take  them  as  the  Senator 
has  presented  them.  I  shall  only  claim  that  he  shall  strike  out  three  from  twenty-one,  as 
mistakes  acknowledged  by  himself— then  there  will  remain  eighteen.  But  in  his  speech 
at  Albany  he  asserted  that  he  had  “  copied  fifty-eight  entries  of  as  many  distinct 
parcels  of  property  made  in  the  name  of  land  from  John  Hughes.”  Out  of  these  he 
has  discovered,  so  far,  but  eighteen  ;  and  he  has  forty  more  to  find  out,  if  he  would  sup¬ 
port  the  false  statement  of  his  speech.  But  Mr.  Brooks  begins  to  despair  of  the  Recorder’s 
Office,  and  I  shall  not  trouble  him  further  at  present  in  regard  to  it,  except  to  say  that  I 
shall  hold  him  accountable  for  the  forty  other  entries  which  would  be  necessary  to  change 
the  statement  in  his  speech  from  a  falsehood  into  a  fact.  He  hopes  to  prove,  however, 
from  the  Catholic  Almanac,  what  the  Register’s  office  fails  him  in.  He  says  the  diocese  of 
Brooklyn  has  fifteen  churches,  and  insinuates  that  I  am  the  owner  of  them  all.  The 
diocese  of  Buffalo  has  a  hundred  churches,  and  that  of  Albany  eighty-seven,  and  Mr. 
Brooks  arranges  his  defence  so  as  to  insinuate  that  these  churches  belong  to  me.  I  may 
tell  him  that  all  church  property  in  the  diocese  of  Brooklyn,  Albany,  anil  Buffalo  belong 
to  the  Catholic  people  of  each. 

But  Mr.  Brooks  is  determined  that  I  shall  be  rich  whether  I  will  or  not,  and  he  enume¬ 
rates  not  as  from  the  Register’s  office,  but  as  from  the  Catholic  Almanac,  among  other 
items  of  property,  “  The  Confraternity  of  the  Rosary,  &c.,  &c.,”  The  Arch-Confrater¬ 
nity  of  the  Immaculate  Heart  of  Mary.”  He  does  not  tell  us  by  whom  conveyances  were 


38  CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


made  to  us  of  these  parcels  of  property.  We  may  suppose,  however,  that  they  are  from 
John  Doe  and  Richard  Roe  and  their  wives,  as  found  recorded  in  Lib.  1579,  page,  a  little 
short  of  5,000,000. 

Our  veracious  Senator  next  enumerates  as  my  property  : 

“  The  Redemptorist  Convent,  3d  street. 

“  The  College  of  St.  Francis  Xavier,  West  15th  street. 

“  Community  of  Brothers,  Canal  street, 

“  Academy  of  the  Holy  Infant  Jesus,  Manhattanville. 

“  Convent  of  the  Sacred  Heart,  near  Manhattanville. 

“  Sacred  Heart  Academy,  near  Harlem. 

“  Convent  of  Sisters  of  Mercy,  Houston  and  Mulberry. 

“  Academy  of  St.  Vincent,  107th  street. 

“  St.  Mary’s  School,  East  Broadway.” 

I  must  tell  Air.  Brooks,  that  in  this  long  list  of  institutions  I  have  not  the  slightest 
portion  of  property,  as  he  will  find  if  he  takes  the  trouble  to  examine  the  records  of  the 
Register’s  Office  a  little  more  minutely. 

In  the  Senator’s  next  effort  I  would  suggest  to  him,  if  he  can  do  it  honestly,  to  diminish 
the  large  per  centage  of  difference  between  whatever  is  of  truth  in  his  defence  and  the 
falsehood  of  statements  made  by  him  in  his  speech  at  Albany,  by  slipping  in  to  my 
account,  towards  making  up  the  five  millions,  a  large  slice  of  the  real  estate  which  it  is 
generally  understood  is  owned  by  William  B.  Astor,  Esq. — Of  course  I  have  said,  if  this 
can  be  done  honestly.  It  will  save  the  Senator  the  trouble  of  going  out  of  this  city,  either 
to  the  diocese  of  Albany,  or  Buffalo  or  Brooklyn. 

Let  us  now  come  to  the  arithmetic  of  the  matter.  We  allowed  him  for  his  first  day’s 
labor  in  the  Register's  Office  a  discovery  of  property  to  the  amount  of  two  hundred 
thousand  dollars.  For  his  second,  and  just  to  encourage  him  in  making  out  his  five 
millions,  we  will  allow  his  discoveries  to  be  worth  two  hundred  thousand  more.  Let  us 
state  it  thus : 

According  to  Senator  Brooks  in  the  Senate  of  New  York,  on  the  6th  of  last  March,  the 
property  of  Archbishop  Hughes,  in  the  city  of  New  York  alone,  was  worth  $4,750,000. 


Mr.  Crooks’  first  day’s  investigation  of  the  Archbishop’s  real  estate,  9ay  .  .  .  $200,000 

Second  day’s  ditto .  200,000 

Deduct . .  $400,000 


Balance  between  truth  and  falsehood  still  to  be  accounted  by  the  Senator  ....  $4,350,000 


Besides  this,  Mr.  Brooks  will  have  to  account  for  the  forty  missing  entries  on  the 
Register’s  books,  which  he  paraded  before  the  Senate  on  the  day  and  date  above 
mentioned.  And  I  hope  he  will  not  give  up  the  Register’s  Office  for  the  Catholic 
Almanac,  or  enumerate  any  more  “Confraternities  of  the  Rosary  ”  among  the  parcels  of 
my  property.  But  what  has  become  of  the  whole  squares  of  land  which  the  Senator  says 
were  mine?  Verily  the  Senator’s  case  furnishes  a  moral,  and  should  be  held  up  as  a 
beacon,  cautioning  youth  especially  against  an  attempt  to  sustain  any  statement  which 
they  know  to  be  untrue.  How  easy  would  it  have  been  for  Mr.  Brooks  to  have  come  out 
at  first  with  the  old  saw,  humanum  est  errare?  How  much  less  humiliating  than  his 
present  position,  if  he  had  said  that  he  had  been  misled  by  the  false  statements  of  the 
Trustees’  Petition  from  St.  Louis  Church,  Buffalo ;  that  for  a  moment  the  anti-popery 
mania  had  taken  possession  of  his  will,  memory  and  understanding ;  that  he  had  been 
carried  away  by  the  passions  of  the  hour,  and  did  not  reflect  on  what  he  was  saying, 
&c.,  &c.  » 

His  letter  of  this  date  shows  that  in  his  zeal  to  make  up  the  difference  between  truth  and 
falsehood,  he  does  not  overlook  the  smallest  things.  We  have  seen  already  the  minuteness 
with  which  he  has  set  down  that  valuable  property  of  mine,  which,  according  to  him,  is_a 
hundred  feet  one  way  by  two  inches  the  other.  He  has  discovered,  also,  that  by  a  deed  in 
the  Recorder’s  office,  I  am  entitled  to  a  free  seat  in  the  Harlem  Railroad  cars  from  the 
City  Hall  to  Fordham,  and  from  Fordham  to  the  City  Hall  as  often  as  I  choose  to  ride. 
It  is  uugonerous  in  Mr.  Brooks  to  quote  this,  because  in  his  speech  he  spoke  of  my  property 
in  the  city  of  New  York  alone,  whereas,  if  he  reflects  for  a  moment,  he  will  perceive  that 
this  property  of  a  free  scat  in  the  Harlem  Railroad  cars,  is  only  partly  in  the  city.  It  is 
in  the  city  from  the  Park  to  Harlem  Bridge,  and  all  beyond  that  is  out  of  the  city.  This 
is  a  small  matter,  but  Mr.  Brooks  is  so  nice  and  scrupulous  in  his  enumerations  ot  my  pro¬ 
perty,  that  I  think  he  must  have  overlooked  it  through  inadvertency. 

The  public  will  perceive  that  in  all  I  have  hitherto  written  I  have  not  embarrassed  tne 
question  by  any  explanation  of  the  circumstances  under  which  property  has  been  entered 
in  my  name.  I  reserve  to  myself  the  privilege  of  giving  a  full  and  candid  account  ol  suen 
matters  for  the  information  of  those  who  may  take  an  interest  in  the  question,  so  soon  as 
Mr.  Brooks  shall  have  accounted  for  the  balance  of  my  property  constituting  the  ditlcrence, 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN. 


39 


if  he  is  to  be  believed,  between  $400,000,  for  which  we  have  given  him  credit  already,  and 
84,750,000  which  he  said  my  property  in  the  city  of  New  York  alone  was  worth,  on  the  6th 
of  last  March.  But  I  cannot  close  the  present  communication  without  again  directing  the 
attention  of  the  public  to  the  dangers  not  so  much  of  making  a  false  and  foolish  statement 
in  a  senatorial  speech,  as  Mr.  Brooks  has  done,  but  of  persevering  as  Mr.  Brooks  does,  in 
the  attempt  to  sustain  it  by  new  subterfuges. 

fJOHN,  Archbishop  of  New  York. 


tTew  York,  April  21. 


SENATOR.  BROOKS  VS.  ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 

TEMPORALITIES  OF  THE  ROMISH  CHURCH. 

To  the  Editors  of  the  Courier  8f  Enquirer : 

I  am  still  accused  by  “fJohn,  Archbishop  of  New  York,”  of  uttering  and  maintaining 
falsehoods.  My  defence  is  called  unfortunate,  my  statements  false,  foolish  and  silly 
subterfuges,  my  position  humiliating,  my  testimony  fatal  to  myself,  and  to  sum  up  all 
in  a  sentence,  I  have  done  that  which  “an  honorable  man  would  shrink  from  doingP 
This  is  a  heavy  load  for  an  Archbishop  to  buckle  on  the  shoulders  of  an  humble  layman 
like  myself,  but  if  his  Arch  Highness  is  content  with  the  progress  of  the  controversy,  so 
am  I.  If  he  is  satisfied  with  his  string  of  epithets,  I  am  content  with  my  record  of  facts. 
If  I  was  “  in  an  awkward  position,”  in  the  beginning,  and  have  multiplied  “  the  awkward¬ 
ness  of  that  position,”  in  the  continuation  of  this  correspondence,  so  much  the  worse  for 
me,  and  so  much  the  better  for  the  Archbishop. 

I  shall  proceed  in  the  debate  as  I  have  begun,  hoping,  for  the  sake  of  a  good  cause, 
neither  to  loose  my  temper  nor  my  manners.  The  charges  of  “  falsehood  ”  and  “  folly,” 
of  “dishonor”  and  “humiliation,”  fall  harmless  at  my  feet.  They  neither  disturb  my 
nerves  by  day,  nor  my  rest  at  night.  Each  of  us  is  addressing  an  intelligent  people,  who 
are  capable  of  deciding  questions  of  veracity  between  man  and  man,  upon  the  record 
which  His  Grace  and  myself  are  furnishing  the  public.  I  have  but  a  single  regret  in  all 
the  controversy  so  far,  and  that  is,  that  all  those  whom  the  Archbishop  addresses  through 
the  public  press  I  am  not  also  permitted  to  speak  to,  in  the  same  way.  In  that  “  meanest 
of  all  printed  newspapers  the  New  York  Express,” — as  the  amiable  and  gentlemanly 
Archbishop  is  iileased  to  style  a  Journal  in  which  my  name  is  associated  with  others,  he 
has  had  a  hearing,  in  full,  which  I  have  in  vain  called  for  from  the  press  under  his  control. 
This  may  be  deemed  fair  play  at  Rome,  but  fair  men  in  America,  whether  Catholic  or 
Protestant,  will  regard  it  as  at  least  wanting  in  magnanimity  and  justice. 

I  have  been  trying  to  find  an  apology  for  the  irritability  and  personality  of  the  gentle¬ 
man  who  styles  himself  |John,  Archbishop  of  New  York.”  The  Legislature  preceding  the 
present  were  asked  to  pass  a  special  Act  for  the  benefit  of  him,  his  sect  and  party,  not 
only  in  violation  of  the  spirit  of  the  State  Acts  of  April  6,  1784,  March  7,  1788,  March  17, 
1795,  and  all  these  Acts  combined  in  one,  and  which  became  the  law  of  the  State  in  1813,  but 
in  violation  of  the  38th  article  of  the  old  Constitution,  which  declared  in  terms  that  the  People 
and  State  were  “  required  by  the  benevolent  principles  of  rational  liberty  not  only  to  expel 
civil  tyranny,  but  also  to  guard  a,gainst  that  spiritual  oppression  and  intolerance  where¬ 
with  the  ambition  of  weak  and  wicked  priests  and  princes  have  scourged  mankind.” 

The  Legislature  came  near  forgetting  the  old  law,  the  old  Constitution,  and  that  equal 
and  exact  justice  which  is  the  rock  of  our  existence  as  a  free  Republic.  But  reason 
prevailed  over  error.  The  Legislature  not  only  refused  additional  power  to  the  Archbishop 
and  his  Party  then,  but  they,  the  successors  of  that  Legislature,  have  taken  steps  to  restore 
to  Church  Trustees,  Congregations,  Corporations  and  individual  worshippers,  the  power  of 
which  they  were  robbed  by  the  Baltimore  Ordinances  of  1849  and  1852,  and  by  the 
demands  of  the  Archbishop  himself. 

Before  I  have  done  with  the  Archbishop,  and  his  accusations  of  falsehood  against  me, 
I  shall  have  occasion  to  show  that,  immediately  after  the  Baltimore  Council  of  Bishops 
decreed,  in  1849,  that  all  the  Churches  and  other  ecclesiastical  property  acquired  by  gifts 
or  through  the  obligations  of  the  faithful,  designed  to  be  expended  for  charitable  or 
religious  uses,  belong  to  the  Bishop,  unless  it  is  certified  in  writing  that  it  was  given  for 
some  religious  order  or  congregation  of  priests,  Archbishop  Hughes  set  about  securing 
conveyances  of  Church  Property  to  himself,  in  all  parts  of  the  State.  I  have  such  con¬ 
veyances  from  Erie  and  elsewhere,  which  will  appear  all  in  good  season. 

My  offence  is,  in  the  eyes  of  the  Archbishop,  that  I  voted  for,  and  spoke  for,  the  Church 


40 


CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


* 


Property  Bill  of  Mr.  Putnam,  so  unlike  that  Church  Property  Bill,  for  the  benefit  of  him 
and  his,  which  was  before  a  previous  Legislature.  I  have  shown  the  Archbishop’s  zeal  to 
possess  the  temporalities  of  the  people  of  his  Diocese  and  of  the  State.  I  have  pointed  to 
his  titles  and  his  deeds,  and  overhauled  a  long  list  of  records  to  him,  his  heirs  and 
assignees,  I  have,  I  think,  through  these  records,  made  the  Archbishop  hateful  in  his  own 
eyes,  and  certainly  a  reproach  even  among  many  of  his  own  people,  whose  sympathies  and 
encouragement  I  have.  He  reads  in  the  Church  Property  Bill  a  law  of  the  State,  over¬ 
throwing  the  decrees  of  his  Council  of  Bishops,  and  putting  an  end  to  those  transfers  of 
Church  Property,  whether  of  trustes  or  persons  when  conveyed  to  fJoha  Hughes.  That 
law  puts  an  end  to  Grants,  Conveyances,  Devises  and  Leases  to  persons  in  ecclesiastical 
offices,  or  to  their  successors,  and  it  grieves  the  Archbishop  to  the  quick,  to  see  his 
enormous  accumulations  checked  by  law,  and  the  people  whose  spiritual  leader  he  is, 
placed  even  in  control  of  those  walls  of  brick  and  mortar,  which  have  been  built  by  the 
labor  of  their  own  hands.  He  may  deny  a  Priest  to  those  who  comform  to  the  law,  and 
threaten  a  hundred  churches  as  he  did  the  St.  Louis  Church  at  Buffalo,  that  he  will  see 
their  edifices,  brick  by  brick,  tumble  to  pieces  before  he  will  grant  them  a  spiritual  teacher, 
or  priest.  Or,  he  may  fulfil,  his  declared  intention  of  defeating  the  law  of  the  State,  if  he 
can.  through  those  professional  gentlemen ■’  who  “may  discover  some  defect  in  the 
framing  and  wording  of  the  enactment,  which  will  render  it  inapplicable  ! ”  But  let 
me  whisper  to  him,  thus  early,  that  other  Legislatures  will  fill  the  chinks  and  crannies 
which  his  crafty  mind  thus  opens  in  advance,  and  which  skilful  lawyers  may  aid  him  in 
keeping  open  for  a  season.  The  law  has  a  spirit  as  well  as  a  letter,  and  in  this  land  the 
rule  of  conduct  with  all  good  citizens,  is  that  the  la?v  must  be  obeyed, — even  by  Archbishops. 

I  begin  my  additional  record  to-day  with  another  conveyance  “  from  Trustees  to  John 
Hughes,”  and  preface  it  with  the  Archbishop’s  repeated  declaration,  recorded  in  the 
Express,  recorded  in  the  Courier,  and  recorded  in  the  Times,  on  two  different  days  of  two 
different  weeks,  that  I  was  guilty  of  falsehood,  in  declaring  that  Church  Property  had 
been  conveyed  to  him  by  Trustees  : — 


LOOK  ON  THIS  PICTURE. 

Statement  in  the  Ap.chbishop’s  First  Letter. 

“  I  have  never  received  or  accepted  any  tranfer 
of  any  properly  whatever  from,  Trustees. 

*  *  *  Mr.  Brooks’s  statement  ‘  I  know  to  be 
UNTRUE.’  ” 

Statement  in  the  Archbishop’s  Second  Letter. 

“  Any  one  who  asserts  that  many  of  the  con¬ 
veyances  of  real  estate  to  me  were  made  by  Trustees, 
asserts  a  gross,  and  towards  me,  an  injurious 
falsehood !” 


AND  XOW  ON  THIS. 

The  Archbishop  Against  the  Record. 

See  the  conveyance  of  the — 

“  Trustees  of  St.  John's  Roman  Catholic  Church 
to  John  Hughes,  dated  July  17th,  1S44,  999  years. 
Consideration,  one  cent  a  year  ! 

I  now  place— 

The  Archbishop  against  himself. — See  his  tetter, 
April  19th.  See  by  his  own  comment  upon  con¬ 
veyance  N o.  8,  cited  by  me,  where  he  admits  that 
Mr.  Bartholomew  O’Connor  (in  the  case  of  his  transfer 
to  John  Hughes)  “  was  only  the  Assignee  [to  him] 
of  a  Bankrupt  board  of  Trustees  1” 


But  the  end  is  not  yet,  though  this  might  do  for  a  poor  layman,  like  myself,  in  a 
controversy  with  a  distinguished  Archbishop.  But,  as  I  said,  there  were  more  conveyances 
than  one  to  John  Hughes  from  Trustees.  I  am,  perhaps,  bound  to  cite  mere  than  the  two 
of  this  class  already  named,  albeit  I  could  not  see  the  cause  of  the  Archbishop  s  soreness 
on  this  point  until  the  truth  flashed  upon  my  mind,  that  all  such  conveyances  Irom 
Trustees  to  John  Hughes  were  illegal  and  void! 

Trustees  have  no  authority  to  convey  Church  property  to  Archbishop.  Bishop,  or  Priest, 
except  upon  application  to  the  Supreme  Court,  which,  I  believe,  has,  in  no  instance,  in 
the  record  before  me,  been  done.  This  is  the  law.  and  the  Archbishop  has,  therefore, 
received  and  holds  property  in  violation  of  law,  which  belongs  to  the  trustees,  or  iliose 
for  whose  benefit  the  trust  was  held!  Will  the  possessor  return  this  property  to  the  legal 
owners? 

But  let  me  give  another  of  the  Archbishop’s  examples  of  avoiding  issues  and  facts. 
He  says : — 

“  He  (Mr.  Brooks)  begins  by  alleging  that  be  is  borne  out  in  regard  to  conveyances  from  trustees  by  the 
fact  that  the  trustees  of  St.  John’s  Roman  Catholic  Church  gave  me  a  lease  of  their  property,  bow,  one  of 
two  things  :  A  man  who  has  a  lease  is  either  the  owner  of  the  property  or  lie  is  not.  If  he  is  not  the  owner, 
the  property  has  not  been  conveyed  to  him  in  the  sense  of  Mr.  Brooks’  statement.,  that  numerous  transfers  of 
property  were  made  to  me  by  trustees ;  and,  in  that  event,  Mr.  Brooks  lias  failed  to  prove  his  assertion. 
He  has  only  proved  that  I  am  the  tenant  of  the  trustees  of  St.  John’s  Church  ;  and,  if  he  thinks  tins 
warrants  his  statement,  then  a  lease,  according  to  Mr.  Brooks,  will  he  equivalent  to  a  deed  in  fee  simple. 
This  is  Radicalism,  Fourierism,  such  as  has  not  been  put  forth  before.” 

My  answer  is,  that  that  is  property  which  the  law  makes  property,  and  a  conveyance  for 
999  years,  at  one  cent  a  year,  to  John  Hughes,  his  heirs,  and  assigns,  makes  the  pro¬ 
perty  his,  morally,  legally,  actually.  It  is  in  his  name,  at  his  disposal,  under  his  control. 
It  is  so  recorded,  and  nothing  but  his  will  and  pleasure  can  change  the  record. 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN.  41 


If  tbe  Archbishop  will  leave  off  calling  names  long  enough  to  refer  to  the  2d  Revised 
Statutes  he  will  find,  pages  162  and  171,  last  edition,  sections  1  and  58,  the  following  to 
be  the  law  of  the  case : 

“  The  term  ‘  conveyance,1  as  used  in  this  chapter,  shall  be  construed  to  embrace  every  instrument  in  writ¬ 
ing  by  which  any  estate  is  created,  aliened,  mortgaged,  or  assigned,  or  by  which  the  title  to  any  real  estate 
may  be  effected  in  loan  and  equity,  except  last  wills  and  testaments  ;  leases  for  a  term  not  exceeding  three 
years,  and  executory  contracts  for  the  sale  or  purchase  of  lands.” 

The  following  extract  from  the  Revised  Statutes,  will  show  that  property  held  in  the 
Bishop’s  name  is  his  also,  unless  thus  held  in  violation  of  other  Statutes  : 

“Every  conveyance  of  real  estate,  within  this  State  hereafter  made,  shall  be  recorded  in  the  office  of  the 
Clerk  of  the  County  where  such  real  estate  shall  be  situated,  and  every  such  conveyance  not  so  recorded 
shall  be  void  as  against  any  subsequent  purchaser  in  good  faith,  and  fo>-  a  valuable  consideration  of  the 
same  real  estate  or  any  portion  thereof,  whose  conveyance  shall  first  be  duly  recorded.” 

The  Archbishop,  as  badly  off  in  law  as  in  fact,  must  now  fly  to  some  other  technicality 
to  find  means  of  escape.  One  cannot  but  marvel  to  see  His  Grace  misquote  my  speech 
(as  where  he  twice  puts  land  for  and),  and  feel  pity  for  him  when  he  misstates  my  letter 
in  regard  to  the  conveyance  from  Andrew  Byrne.  The  record  stated  that  the  transfer  was 
to  John  Hughes,  and  I  proved  from  that  record  that  two  distinct  conveyances,  of  two  dis¬ 
tinct  parcels  of  property,  were  made  to  him,  John  Hughes.  He  is  welcome  to  the 
advantage  of  an  obvious  typographical  error.  A  resort  to  such  straws  shows  the 
weakness  of  his  cause  and  the  desperation  of  his  mind.  Dealing  with  one  who  uses  such 
weapons,  and  hides  himself  behind  such  a  refuge,  I  almost  forget  that  I  am  dealing  with 
one  who  is  styled  the  “  Most  Rev.  John  Hughes,  D.D.,  Archbishop  of  the  Province  and 
Archdiocese  of  New  York.’7 

But  I  have  not  done  with  the  conveyances  of  property  to  John  Hughes — meaning  the 
Archbishop,  nor  with  the  conveyance  of  Trustees  to  him.  I  am  called  over  and  over 
again  a  falsifier  on  this  point,  and  here  is  a  continuation  of  my  answer  to  such  courteous 
denunciations : 


CONVEYANCE  OF  TRUSTEES  TO  JOHN  HUGHES. 


RECORD  NUMBER  TWENTY-TWO. 

From  the  Register's  Office,  City  of  Few  York. 

The  Trustees  of  ]  Date  of  Con.,  Dec.  9th, 
Transfiguration  Church  I  1851.  Recorded  in  liber 
to  f  591,  page  26S.  Consi- 

John  Hughes.  J  deration,  one  dollar. 

All  those  two  certain  lots  of  ground,  situate,  lying, 
and  being  on  north  side  of  Chambers  street,  in  the 
City  of  New  York,  and  which,  on  a  map  or  survey 
made  by  Cassine  H.  Goerch,  City  Surveyor,  dated 
May  Tth,  1795,  are  known  and  distinguished  by  lots 
numbers  16  and  17,  adjoining  each  other,  and  are 
together  bounded  S.  by  Chambers  street,  N.  by  lots 
number  36  and  37  on  said  map,  and  W.  by  lot  number 
15,  and  E.  by  lot  number  18  on  said  map,  being  to¬ 
gether  ,Jront  and  rear,  50  feet  in  breadth,  and  in 
length  75  feet  7%  inches,  agreeably  to  said  map ;  and 
also  all  that  certain  messuage  or  dwelling-house,  and 
lot,  piece,  or  parcel  of  ground,  situate,  lying,  and 
being  in  Reade  street,  in  the  city  of  New  York,  de¬ 
scribed  in  a  certain  Indenture  of  deed  recorded  in 
liber  133  of  Conveyances,  page  11,  as  follows,  viz. : 
All  that  certain  lot,  piece,  or  parcel  of  land,  situate, 
lying,  and  being  in  Reade  street,  in  the  Sixth  Ward 
of  the  City  of  New  York,  known  and  distinguished 
by  No.  28,  bounded  N.  in  front  by  Reade  street, 
aforesaid,  S.  in  the  rear  by  land  claimed  by  John 
Agnew,  W.  by  ground  belonging  to  Geo.  Brincker- 
hoff,  and  E.  by  ground  claimed  by  heirs  of  Peter 
Nailor,  containing  in  breadth,  in  front  and  rear,  25 
feet,  and  in  length,  on  each  side,  75  feet  7  inches. 


NUMBER  TWENTY-THREE. 

Peter  Johnston,  and]  Date  of  Con.,  March  3d,  1853. 
Martha  his  wife,  (  Recorded  in  liber  623,  page 
to  f  498,  March  4th,  1853.  Con- 

John  Hughes.  J  sideration,  $3,700. 

All  those  certain  two  lots,  pieces,  or  parcels  of 


ground,  situate,  lying,  and  being  in  the  18th  Ward  of 
the  City  of  New  York,  and  bounded  and  described  as 
follows :  Beginning  at  a  point  on  the  south  line  of 
15th  street,  at  the  distance  of  250  feet  westerly  from 
southwest  corner  of  15th  street  and  Avenue  B,  thence 
running  northwest  along  said  south  line  to  15th  street, 
50  feet ;  thence  running  southwest,  at  right  angles, 
to  said  south  line,  and  parallel  with  west  line  of 
Avenue  B,  103  feet  3  inches,  to  a  line  equidistant 
from  14th  street  and  15th  street,  thence  running 
along  said  last-mentioned  line  southeast  and  paral¬ 
lel  with  said  south  line  of  15th  street,  50  feet ;  and 
thence  running  northeast  and  parallel  with  said 
west  line  of  Avenue  B,  103  feet  and  3  inches,  to  place 
of  beginning. 


NUMBER  TWENTY-FOUR. 


Michael  McKeon, 
and 

Eliza,  his  wife, 
to 

John  Hughes. 


Date  of  Conveyance,  June  13th, 
1853.  Recorded  in  liber  650, 
page  324,  November  5th,  1853. 
Consideration,  $S,000. 


All  those  two  certain  lots,  pieces,  or  parcels  of 
land,  situate,  lying  and  being  in  the  9th  Ward  of  the 
City  of  New  York,  known  and  distinguished,  on  a 
map  or  chart  of  the  property  of  Trinity  Church, 
called  the  3d  R.  N.  Division  of  the  Church  farm,  by 
the  numbers  215  and  216,  the  said  lots  lying  together, 
and  taken  together,  being  bounded  and  described  as 
follows :  Beginning  on  the  south  side  of  LeRoy  street, 
at  a  point  distant  100  feet  eastwardly,  from  the  cor¬ 
ner  formed  by  its  intersection  with  the  easterly  side 
of  Greenwich  street;  running  thence  southerly,  at 
right  angles  to  LeRoy  street,  100  feet ;  thence  east¬ 
wardly,  parallel  with  LeRoy  street,  50  feet ;  thence 
northwardly  at  right  angles  to  LeRoy  street,  100  feet 
to  LeRoy  street ;  and  thence  westwa.rdly  along  the 
south  line  of  LeRoy  street,  50  feet,  to  place  of  begin¬ 
ning  ;  each  of  said  lots  being  25  feet  front  and  rear, 
and  100  feet  on  each  side. 


42  CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


NUMBER  TWENTY-FIVE. 

Thomas  E.  Davis,  and'l  Date  of  Con.,  April  27, 1S53. 
Anne,  his  wife.  1  Recorded  in  liber  631,  p. 

to  [  43S,  May  26,  1S53.  Con- 

John  Hughes.  J  sideration,  $500. 

All  that  certain  lot,  piece,  or  parcel  of  land,  situ¬ 
ate,  lying,  and  being  on  the  north  side  of  117th  street, 
in  the  12th  Ward  of  City  of  New  York,  and  bounded 
and  described  as  follows,  viz. :  Commencing  at  a 
point  on  the  said  north  side  of  117th  street,  distant 
260  feet  east  from  northeast  corner  of  117th  street 
and  4th  Avenue;  running  northerly  and  parallel 
with  4th  Avenue,  100  feet  to  the  centre  line  of  the 
block  between  117th  and  118th  streets;  thence  east 
and  parallel  with  117th  street,  25  feet;  thence  south 
and  parallel  with  4th  Avenue,  100  feet  to  said  north 
side  of  117th  street ;  and  thence  westwardly,  along 
said  north  side  of  117th  street,  25  feet,  to  point  or 
place  of  beginning. 

NUMBER  TWENTY-SIX. 

James  R.  Bay  ley  and 'j  Assignment  of  Lease. — Re- 
James  B.  Nicholson,  I  corded  in  liber  5S6,  p.  4S6, 
to  f  Dec.  17,  1851.  Considera- 

John  Hughes.  J  tion,  $3,600. 

Trustees  appointed  by  the  Supreme  Court,  in  place 
of  Charles  C.  Rise,  D.D.,  Surveying  Assignee,  &c. 

NUMBER  TWENTY-SEVEN. 

Thomas  Lennon  1  Date  of  Con.,  Aug.  30, 1S51.  Re- 
to  >  corded  in  liber  5S2,  page  378. 

John  Hughes.  )  Consideration,  $1. 

All  and  singular  those  four  certain  lots,  pieces,  or 
parcels  of  land,  situate,  lying,  and  being  in  the  19th 
Ward  of  City  of  New  York,  and  severally  known  and 
distinguished,  on  a  certain  map  drawn,  February  10, 
1851,  by  D.  Ewen,  City  Surveyor,  and  filed  in  Regis¬ 
ter’s  Office,  as  numbers  41, 42, 43,  and  44,  which  said 
four  lots,  taken  together  as  one  parcel,  are  in  the 
aggregate  described  as  follows,  that  is  to  say :  Begin¬ 
ning  at  a  point  on  the  southwest  line  of  S4th  street, 
distant  800  feet  southeast  from  intersection  of  south¬ 
east  line  of  5th  Avenue  with  the  southwest  line  of 
84th  street;  thence  running  northwest, but  along  the 
southwest  line  of  84th  street,  100  feet ;  thence  south¬ 
west,  but  parallel  to  5th  Avenue,  102  feet  and  2 
inches ;  thence  southwest,  but  parallel  to  83d  street, 
100  feet ;  thence  northeast,  but  parallel  to  5th  Ave¬ 
nue,  102  feet  and  2  inches,  to  place  of  beginning. 

NUMBER  TWENTY-EIGHT. 

Henry  Grinnell,  and'l  Date, February  1st,  1S53.  Re- 
Sarah  M.,  his  wife,  I  corded  in  liber  626,  p.  505, 
to  {  March  1st,  1S53.  Consider- 

John  Hughes.  J  ation,  $12,000. 


All  those  certain  lots,  pieces,  or  parcels  of  land, 
situate,  lying,  and  being  ou  north  side  of  14th  street, 
in  the  ISth  Ward  of  City  of  New  York,  being  part  of 
certain  premises  conveyed  to  said  Henry  Grinnell 
by  Elephalet  Nott  and  wife,  by  deed,  bearing  date 
August  1st,  1851,  and  recorded  in  Register’s  Office, 
in  liber  579,  page  424,  as  the  same  are  laid  down  and 
designated  on  the  diagram  annexed  to  said  deed,  by 
numbers  203,  204, 205,  and  206,  which  taken  together, 
are  bounded  and  described  as  follows :  Beginning  at 
a  point  on  the  north  side  of  14th  street,  distant  250 
feet  west,  from  northwest  corner  of  14th  street  and 
Avenue  B ;  running  thence  west  along  north  side  of 
14th  street,  100  feet ;  thence  north,  on  a  line  parallel 
with  Avenue  B,  103  feet  3  inches,  to  centre  line  of 
block  between  14th  and  15th  streets ;  thence  east, 
along  said  centre  line,  100  feet ;  thence  south,  and  ou 
a  line  parallel  with  Avenue  B,  103  feet  and  3  inches, 
to  place  of  beginning. 

NUMBER  TWENTY-NINE. 

George  N.  Lawrence,'!  Date  of  Con.,  December  10th, 
and  1852.  Recorded  in  liber 

Mary  Ann,  his  wife,  >-  626,  page  192,  February 

to  8th,  1853.  Consideration, 

John  Hughes.  J  $2,400. 

All  those  six  certain  lots,  pieces,  or  parcels  of 
ground,  situate,  lying,  and  being  in  the  12th  Ward  of 
the  City  of  New  York,  and  known  and  distinguished, 
on  a  map  of  property  belonging  to  Hicks,  Lawrence 
&  Co.,  surveyed  December  27th,  1S53,  and  on  file  in 
Register’s  Office,  by  numbers  61,  62,  63,  64,  65,  and 
66.  Said  six  lots,  being  taken  together,  are  bounded 
and  described  as  follows :  Beginning  at  a  point  on 
the  northwest  corner  of  131st  street  and  Bloomingdale 
road,  running  thence  west  along  north  line  of  131st 
street,  143  feet;  thence  north  and  parallel  with  llih 
Avenue,  99  feet  10  inches;  thence  east  and  parallel 
with  131st  street,  134  feet  to  Bloomingdale  road  ;  and 
hence  south,  along  west  side  of  Bloomingdale  road, 
to  place  of  beginning. 

NUMBER  THIRTY. 

Samuel  Newby,  and  ]  Date  of  Con.,  February  2d 
Sarah,  his  wife,  (  1S52.  Recorded  in  liber  594 

to  f  p.  237,  February  17th,  1852 

John  Hughes.  J  Consideration,  $6,000. 

All  those  four  certain  lots,  pieces,  or  parcels  of 
land,  situate,  lying,  and  being  on  N.  E.  side  of  42d 
street,  between  Sth  and  9th  Avenues,  in  City  of  New 
York,  and  known  and  distinguished  on  a  map  on  file 
in  the  Register’s  Office,  by  numbers  5S6, 587, 588,  and 
5S9,  the  said  lots  containing  each  25  feet  in  width, 
in  front  and  rear,  and  100  feet  4  inches  in  depth,  on 
each  side,  and  bounded  S.  W.  by  42d  street,  N.  E.  by 
lots  numbers  550,  551,  552,  and  553,  S.  E.  by  lot  No. 
585,  N.  W.  by  lot  No.  590. 


The  Archbishop  will  see  that,  while  he  is  abusive  in  words,  I  am  not  idle  in  facts.  He 
will  see  that  I  have  proved  what  I  said  in  the  Senate,  in  regard  to  his  large  possessions  of 
property  in  this  city.  He  will  see  that  I  have  proved  what  I  said  in  regard  to  conveyances  to 
him  from  Trustees.  He  will  see  that  I  am  reporting  pretty  rapid  progress,  too.  in  regard  to 
the  value  of  the  Church  Property  held  by  him  in  this  city.  He  might  see,  if  he  would,  the 
difference  in  value  between  property  in  this  city  ten  and  twelve  years  ago  and  now ;  but 
as  he  wont  see  without  my  aid,  I  shall  furnish  him  with  a  pair  of  spectacles  to  do  so, 
by-and-by.  He  might  make  a  clean  breast  of  the  magnitude  of  his  possessions  in  Real 
Estate,  il  he  would,  and  thus  save  himself  the  mortification  of  seeing  his  duplicity  publicly 
exposed,  and  me  the  trouble  of  exposing  that  duplicity.  But  to  quote  John  Hughes, 
,  humanum  est  errare.  I  am  more  in  pursuit  of  a  principle  than  a  man,  and  my  object 
has  been,  is,  and  will  be,  to  show  how  anti-Republican.  in  a  Government  like  this,  it  is  for 
any  man,  and  most  of  all,  the  Archbishop  of  a  great  church,  to  be  engaged  as  a  broker  in 
Real  Estate — to  be  employed  in  buying  houses  and  lands,  churches  and  vacant  lots,  espe¬ 
cially  when  some  of  those  lots,  reduced  to  4  by  4,  and  8  by  8,  and  16  by  16,  are  speculated 
in  as  burial-places  for  the  dead. 

For  to-day,  again,  I  am, 

Very  respectfully,  yours,  &c.. 

ERASTUS  BROOKS. 

New  York,  April  23d,  1855. 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN.  43 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES  TO  SENATOR  BROOKS- 

SENATOR  EROOKS  RESIGNING  HIMSELF  NOT  ONLY  TO  THE  AWKWARDNESS,  BUT  ALSO  TO  THE 
MORAL  DEGRADATION  OF  HIS  POSITION. 

To  the  Editors  of  the  Courier  and  Enquirer  : 

I  have  charged  Senator  Brooks  with  falsehoods,  uttered  deliberately  by  him  in  the 
Senate  Chamber  of  New  York,  and  calculated,  if  not  intended,  to  inflict  injury  on  my 
reputation.  I  have  sustained  -the  charge  already  to  some  extent  by  facts,  and  pledge  my¬ 
self  to  the  public  that  other  facts  shall  not  be  wanting  to  complete  the  proof  of  my  charge. 
In  the  meantime,  Senator  Brooks  affects  to  ignore  the  evidences  that  brand  him  as  no 
honorable  man  would  suffer  himself  to  be  branded,  as  nothing  more  than  idle  epithets  that 
have  no  meaning.  If  I  call  a  man  a  thief,  or  the  receiver  of  property  stolen  from  me,  he 
may  say  (provided  he  is  innocent)  that  the  charge  of  theft,  or  the  receiving  of  stolen 
goods,  'falls  harmless  at  his  feet — that  if  I  am  satisfied  with  my  “  string  of  epithets,”  he  is 
content  with  his  “  record  of  facts.”  But  if  I  show  on  his  person  the  very  property  which 
has  been  stolen  from  me,  it  is  too  late  for  him  to  say  that  “  my  charges  fall  harmless  at 
his  feet.” 

I  use  this  illustration  not  as  intended  to  degrade]  Mr.  Brooks  in  any  way,  but  to  point 
out  to  him  that  when  I  charge  him  with  falsehood,  it  is  because  he  has  been  guilty  of 
falsehood,  and  if  he  dare  deny  the  charge  I  am  quite  prepared  to  prove  it. 

Our  Senator,  therefore,  must  see  the  necessity  of  standing  up  for  his  reputation.  The 
matter  is  too  serious  for  that  philosophy  which  he  attempts  to  put  on.  He  should  know 
that  his  friends,  his  constituents,  the  Legislature  of  New  York,  and  the  people  of  the 
State  and  Country  at  large,  have  an  interest  in  his  reputation  which  he  has  no  right  to 
trifle  with.  No  man  is  the  absolute  owner  either  of  his  life  or  character.  Neither  the  one 
or  the  other  is  his  property  in  any  seDse  that  would  authorize  him  to  destroy  or  damage  it. 
His  life  is  the  property  of  God.  His  character  belongs  to  his  fellow  men.  His  relation  to 
either  is  that  of  a  trustee,  and  society  has  a  right  to  require  that  he  shall  net  as  a  faithful 
guardian  for  the  preservation  of  both.  Mr.  Senator  Brooks,  therefore,  is  not  at  liberty  to 
affect  the  philosophy  of  indifference  when  the  charge  of  falsehood  is  brought  against  him 
on  responsible  authority.  He  has  no  right  to  let  himself  down  to  a  position  of  acknow¬ 
ledged  degradation,  without  making  an  effort  to  sustain  himself  against  charges  which 
are  damaging  to  his  character  only  in  so  far  as,  unhappily  for  him,  they  are  too  true. 

Again,  Mr.  Brooks  may  not  attempt  to  throw  dust  into  the  eyes  of  that  “  intelligent 
people  ”  whom  we  both  address,  by  copying  out  extracts  from  the  Register’s  Office  as 
regards  property  conveyed  to  me.  This  is  not  the  question.  If  Mr.  Brooks  had  stated 
before  the  Senate  that  certain  conveyances  had  been  made  to  me  in  the  City  of  New  York, 
or  elsewhere,  he  would  have  stated  what  I  myself  was  the  first  to  proclaim, — what  is 
known  to  the  whole  community  of  New  York,  and  what  requires  no  proof.  It  is  known  to 
all  that  for  the  last  twelve  or  fourteen  years,  property  designed  for  Catholic  church 
purposes  has  been  vested  in  the  Bishop, — said  property  being  in  all  other  respects  for  its 
uses,  its  income,  its  expenditures,  as  much  the  property  of  the  several  congregations,  as  if 
it  had  been  invested  in  lay  Trustees,  the  only  difference  being  that  there  is  no  authority 
whereby  such  property  can  be  mortgaged  and  brought  into  jeopardy  by  irresponsible  lay¬ 
men  without  the  knowledge  and  concurrence  of  the  Bishop.  By  copying  extracts  from 
the  Register’s  Office,  therefore,  Mr.  Brooks  is  attempting  to  prove  what  is  not  in  dispute, 
what  is  admitted,  and  what  is  known  to  all  as  a  general  fact. 

But  even  in  his  undertaking  to  prove  what  everybody  knows  as  to  the  general  fact 
Mr.  Brooks  is  not  justified  in  falsifying  the  records  from  which  he  pretends  to  give  extracts’. 
In  this  he  shows  the  moral  danger  of  any  attempt  to  sustain  a  primary  falsehood,  since 
every  such  attempt  involves  the  necessity  of  having  resourse  to  secondary,  and  in  main¬ 
taining  these,  to  certify  falsehoods  ad  infinitam  nauseam.  The  fiat  of  the  Almighty  at 
the  Creation,  in  reference  to  plants  and  trees,  ordaining  that  each  should  bear  fruit  and 
seed  according  to  its  kind,  is  perfectly  applicable  to  truth  and  falsehood.  Each  bears 
fruit  according  to  its  kind. 

To  elucidate  this  principle,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  state  that  in  human  thought  or  human 
language  there  are  but  three  kinds  of  propositions  possible.  First,  the  proposition  which 
yields  fruit  according  to  its  kind,  requiring  nothing  but  truth  to  sustain  it.  Second,  the 
proposition  which  is  false,  and  in  like  manner  yields  fruit  according  to  its  kind,  making  it 
necessary  that  other  falsehoods  should  be  invented  and  employed  for  its  support.  Third, 
a  mixed  proposition,  which  is  partly  true  and  partly  false  ;  but  which,  when  it  comes  to 
be  analyzed,  and  the  portion  which  is  true  divided  from  the  portion  which  is  false,  will  * 
produce  distinct  corresponding  fruits,  each  according  to  its  kind.  The  portion  which  is 


/ 

/J 


44  CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


false  will  require  falsehoods  for  its  support,  and  the  portion  which  is  true  will  rest  exclu¬ 
sively  for  support  on  the  fruits  which  it  bears,  according  to  its  kind.  In  other  words, 
falsehoods  cannot  be  maintained  by  truth,  nor  does  truth  ever  require  to  be  maintained  by 
falsehood. 

Having  premised  these  observations,  I  proceed  to  say,  that  of  the  primary  falsehoods 
contained  in  Mr.  Brooks’  speech  in  the  Senate  of  New  York,  the  first  1  shall  notice  is  the 
statement  that  “  The  value  of  Archbishop  Hughes'  property  in  the  city  of  Mew  York 
alone  is  not  much  short  of  Jive  millions  of  Hollars.”  As  Mr.  Brooks  is  engaged  in  an 
attempt  to  sustain  this  falsehood,  I  shall  reserve  for  another  communication  the  proofs 
that  it  has  already  borne  fruits  according  to  its  kind. 

The  second  is  the  statement  in  his  speech  that  he  “had  copied  from  the  records  fifty- 
eight  entries  of  as  many  distinct  parcels  of  property  made  in  the  name  of  and  for  John 
Hughes.”  The  Senator  extracts  from  the  Register's  office,  are  an  attempt  to  sustain  the 
statement,  and  although  he  has  falsified  the  entries,  and  counted,  at  least,  one  entry  twice  1 
over,  as  shall  be  shown  more  fully  hereafter,  he  has  as  yet  reached  only  No.  30  out  of 
fifty-eight,  leaving  twenty-eight  distinct  entries  to  be  still  accounted  for.  In  regard  to 
the  fifty-eight  entries,  we  find  in  his  speech  the  following  statement,  embodied  by  way  of 
annotation  :  “  To  those  who  were  curious  in  such  matters,  Mr.  Brooks  exhibited  to  the 
Senate  the  number,  book,  and  page  of  these  several  entries  in  the  city  of  Mew  York.” 
This  was  on  the  6th  of  last  March.  He  has  in  his  pretended  extracts  from  the  Register's 
office,  counted  some  entries  twice ;  he  has  falsified  others,  and  yet  having  arrived, 
according  to  his  own  calculation,  at  No.  30  out  of  fifty-eight,  for  which  he  had  day  and 
date,  book,  and  number,  and  page  to  flourish  in  the  face  of  his  brother  Senators  more'  than 
seven  weeks  ago,  he  now  acknowledges  himself  as  minus  habens,  and  begs  for  somebody 
to  help  him  out  of  his  difficulty.  This  may  be  seen  from  the  following  advertisement  in 
that  meanest  of  all  printed  newspapers,  which  it  is  unnecessary  to  mention  : 

CONVEYANCES  TO  AJICHCISHOP  HUGHES. 

The  friends  of  the  Rights  of  Church  Trustees  and  the  Laity,  against  the  usurpations  of  -Archbishop 
Hughes  and  his  Associates,  are  requested  to  send  abstracts  of  Conveyances  of  Church  Property  to  him,  to 
the  office  of  the  “  New  York  Express.”  Our  object  is  to  elicit  the  truth  as  to  the  amount  and  value  of  the 
Church  Property  owned  by  the  Archbishop  and  his  associates  in  office. 

So,  then,  Senator  Brooks  is  now  begging  that  somebody  may  furnish  him  with  evidences 
to  support  a  statement  made  by  him  on  the  6th  of  March,  accompanied  with  a  pretended 
exhibition  of  number,  book,  &c.,  which  contained'  the  official  proofs  of  the  statement  in 
his  speech !  Verily,  the  Senator's  propositions  are  bearing  fruit  each  according  to  its 
kind ! 

The  third  of  the  primary  falsehoods  of  his  speech  was  that  “  some  of  these  parcels 
cover  whole  squares  of  land,  and  nearly  all  of  them  are  of  great  value.”  1  take  it  for 
granted  that  Senator  Brooks  admits  the  falsehood  of  this  statement,  inasmuch  as  hitherto 
he  has  made  no  allusion  to  it.  If,  however,  he  does  not  admit  its  falsehood,  surely  he 
will  not  withhold  from  the  public  the  whereabouts  of  these  whole  squares  of  land. 

The  fourth  primary  falsehood  which  I  pointed  out  in  the  speech  of  the  Senator  is,  that 
“numerous  transfers  of  this  property,  or  parcels  of  land,  were  made  by  trustees  to  John 
Hughes.” 

I  have  always  denied  that  I  ever  asked,  sought,  received,  or  accepted  any  property 
from  lay  trustees.  This  denial  I  repeat  to-day  with  increased  emphasis.  My  words  in  a 
public  document,  published  before  1  had  seen  the  speech  of  Senator  Brooks,  were,  ••  that 
I  never  recognize  in  them  ”  (trustees  of  the  Catholic  Church  property)  “  the  right  of 
ownership  ;  *  *  *  that  they  could  not  make  over  to  me  the  title  of  such  property ; 
that  it  was  not  theirs  in  such  a  sense  or  for  such  a  purpose,  that  they  could  not  do  it  if  they 
would.”  Mr.  Brooks  affects  to  believe  that  he  has  invalidated  this  statement  by  the  fact 
that  the  trustees  of  St.  John’s  Church  made  to  me  a  lease  of  their  property  for  999  years. 
Now  to  prove  the  truth  of  my  statement  in  this  particular,  it  is  ouly  necessary  to  mention 
two  facts.  The  one  is,  that  this  transfer  was  that  of  a  lease,  and  not  of  property  in  fee 
simple,  as  the  false  statement  in  the  Senator’s  speech  implied.  The  second  is,  that  so  far 
from  accepting  this  property,  as  giving  me  any  right  of  ownership,  I  have  never  meddled 
with  the  management  of  its  temporal  affairs,  directly  or  indirectly — that  it  is  now,  and 
always  has  been,  administered  by  lay  trustees,  just  in  the  same  manner  as  if  no  such 
transfer  of  lease  had  ever  been  made. 

I  wish  it  to  be  understood  that  every  report  of  extracts  which  Mr.  Brooks  has  hitherto 
put  forth  as  frqrn  the  Register’s  records,  shall  be  specifically  and  critically  examined  by  a 
professional  gentleman,  with  the  view  of  showing,  number  by  number,  how  the  several 
primary  falsehoods  of  the  Senator’s  speech  have  borne  fruit,  each  according  to  its  kind, 
in  his  attempt  to  save  them.  The  Senator  has  obtained  from  “  The  Trade  ”  a  series  of 
opinions  extracted  from  various  newspapers  favorable  to  his  position.  He  forgets  that 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN.  45 


the  matters  in  debate  between  him  and  me  are  matters  of  fact,  and  not  of  opinion.  What 
if  the  Legislature  of  New  York  and  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  gave  an 
opinion  either  in  his  favor  or  in  mine,  it  would  not  be  worth  a  straw,  inasmuch  as  the  ques¬ 
tion  is  not  one  of  opinion  but  one  of  fact.  Two  and  two  make  four.  This  is  a  fact.  And  if 
any  man  were  to  say  that  they  make  five  or  seven,  the  endorsement  of  other  men,  possibly 
as  blinded  as  himself,  would  not  alter  the  state  of  his  case  one  iota. 

Besides,  these  worthy  confreres  of  Senator  Brooks  are  under  a  mistaken  view  of  the 
subject.  They  seem  to  suppose  that  if  any  property  had  been  conveyed  to  me,  then 
Senator  Brooks  is  right  and  I  am  wrong.  They  seem  to  suppose  that'  I  denied  the  owner¬ 
ship  of  any  property.  But  this  pretended  ignorance  must  be  a  piece  of  affectation. 
They  did  not  forget  that  in  my  very  first  letter  I  admitted  the  ownership  of  property,  nor 
was  I  at  all  parsimonious  in  reserving  a  sufficient  amount  to  myself  out  of  the  unexpected 
fortune  of  twenty-five  millions  bestowed  on  me  by  the  Presbyterian,  which  Mr.  Brooks 
had  the  cruelty  to  reduce  to  a  sum  barely  short  of  five  millions. 

They  do  not  forget  taking  this  diminished  appropriation  of  the  Senator  as  the  standard 
of  calculation,  I  reserved  the  amount  of  two  millions  as  a  provision  against  want  in  my 
old  age,  and  devoted  the  surplus  £2,750,000,  to  the  establishment  of  a  great  institution, 
which  was  to  bear  the  title  of  “  The  Erastus  Brooks  Library  ” — that  is,  on  the  hypothesis 
that  the  Senator  should  point  out  where  all  this  immense  property  was.  The  Senator  has 
attempted  to  change  the  issue,  and  he  writes  little  squibs  himself,  or  gets  others  to  write 
them  for  him,  or  accepts  them  if  spontaneously  offered,  to  the  effect  that  he  has  triumphed 
over  me,  because  he  has  proved  that  some  conveyances  of  land  have  been  made  in  my 
favor,  which  was  never  denied.  But  let  these  kind  editors  help  him  out  in  showing  the 
amount  of  property — the  fifty-eight  entries — the  whole  squares  of  land,  which,  in  his 
speech  at  Albany,  on  the  6th  of  March,  he  stated  were  mine.  If  they  do  not  help  him  in 
this  way  they  do  not  help  him  at  all,  although  their  little  squibs  may  fill  up  a  portion  of 
the  JYcw  York  Express,  and  induce  its  readers  to  think  that  Senator  Brooks  imagines 
himself  to  be  making  gredt  progress. 

Having  disposed  sufficiently  of  the  Senator's  last  effort,  at  least,  till  a  reliable  investi¬ 
gation  of  the  Records  shall  have  been  made,  I  will  lose  sight  of  the  Senator,  and  address 
the  remaining  portion  of  this  communication  to  the  good  sense  and  candor  of  my  fellow- 
citizens,  Catholics  and  Protestants,  whose  esteem  I  value,  and  who  may  have  been  misled 
in  their  judgment  on  the  subject  involved. 

First. — It  has  been  the  practice,  especially  since  the  bankruptcy  of  no  less  than  four 
Boards  of  Catholic  Lay  Trustees  in  this  city  alone,  to  invest  the  title  of  new  churches  in 
the  Bishop.  This  was  conformable  to  the  discipline  of  the  Catholic  Church  as  regulated 
by  the  Provincial  Councils  of  Baltimore.  It  was  also  in  conformity  with  the  wishes  of 
the  Catholic  people,  at  least,  in  this  city,  whose  temporal  interests  and  reputation  as  a 
religious  community  had  been  almost  destroyed  by  the  bad  management  of  lay  trustees. 
It  is  understood  among  Catholics  that  whatever  may  be  the  form  of  legal  tenure  by  which 
church  property  is  held,  being  once  recognized  as  church  property,  it  belongs  not  to  the 
Bishop,  or  the  trustees,  or  the  parishes,  or  the  people,  but  that  it  is  to  be  regarded  as  the 
property  of  God,  set  apart  for  religious  uses,  and  enjoyed  for  the  common  benefit  of  all. 

Secondly. — Under  these  circumstances,  they  look  upon  the  Bishop  as  the  natural  guar¬ 
dian  of  property  which  has  been  created,  not  by  any  gift  or  donation  of  the  State,  but  by 
their  own  voluntary  contributions  of  Charity.  And  whatever  law  the  State  may  pass, 
there  is  one  thing  certain,  that  nothing  less  than  coercion  will  induce  the  Catholics  to 
discontinue  or  withdraw  the  confidence  which  they  have  in  their  Bishops  as  the  natural 
guardians  of  such  property.  They  never  dream  that  the  Bishop  is  the  owner  of  their 
church  and  church  property,  merely  because  the  deed  thereof  may  be  recorded  in  his 
name.  Neither  will  less  than  coercion  induce  them  to  put  their  property  and  their  repu¬ 
tation  as  a  religious  community  at  the  irresponsible  disposal  of  lay  trustees,  armed  with 
legal  power  to  mortgage  their  property  and  impose  upon  them,  as  has  been  done  already, 
the  burthen  of  debts  by  which  their  churches  may  become  bankrupt,  and  sold  for  the  bene¬ 
fit  of  creditors. 

■  Thirdly.-- It  was  in  this  full  understanding  on  all  sides,  that  they,  the  Catholics  of  New 
York,  contributed  to  redeem  no  less  than  four  churches  from  the  disgraceful  consequences 
of  bankruptcy,  through  bad  management  on  the  part  of  lay  trustees.  These  churches 
were  sold,  under  process  of  law,  for  the  benefit  of  their  creditors.  The  amount  which  they 
brought  would  not  have  been  more  than  some  thirty  or  forty  cents  in  the  dollar.  But 
when,  the  Bishop  consented  to  put  himself  at  the  head  of  the  Catholic  body,  and  accept 
the  title  of  this  property,  they  rallied  around  him,  and,  by  imposing  sacrifices  on  them¬ 
selves,  they  paid  not  only  the  thirty  cents  on  the  dollar,  which  the  law  of  the  state  had 
secured  to  the  creditors,  but  they  went  beyond  law,  and  conformed  to  justice,  by  paying 
one  hundred  cents  to  the  dollar-.  There  is  no  spirit  of  repudiation  of  honest  debts  among 
Catholics,  but  they  are  not  willing  that  lay  trustees  shall  have  power  of  mortgaging — I 
will  not  say  their  property  only,  but  also  their  upright  and  honorable  fame. 


CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


46 


Fourthly. — It  is  in  this  spirit,  and  with  this  understanding,  that  the  Bishop  is  invested 
with  the  titles  of  whatever  church  property  is  recorded  in  his  name,  either  in  the  city  of 
New  York  or  throughout  the  diocese.  Each  church  belongs,  practically,  to  the  Catholic 
congregation  worshipping  therein.  All  the  churches  of  the  diocese  belong,  in  the  same 
way",  to  all  the  Catholics  of  the  diocese.  To  suppose  that  the  Bishop  should  alienate  them, 
mortgage  them,  or  in  any  other  manner  abuse  his  trust  for  his  own  use  and  benefit,  is  to 
suppose  something  that  has  never  entered  the  minds  of  the  Catholic  people.  And,  for 
myself,  I  can  say,  that  my  support,  since  I  have  been  appointed  Bishop  of  New  York,  has 
been  derived  from  the  free  and  voluntary  offerings  of  the  flock  committed  to  my  charge. 
Not  so  much  as  one  farthing  has  accrued  to  me  from  the  nominal  ownership  of  church 
property. 

Fifthly. — It  must  not  be  inferred  from  this  that  I  am  not  sufficiently  provided  for, 
whether  as  regards  my  personal  expenses  or  the  much  weightier  expenses  incident  to  my 
position  as  Catholic  Archbishop  of  New  York.  In  that  respect,  I  feel  that  I  am  very  rich 
— rich  in  the  confidence  and  affections  of  the  people  committed  to  my  care— rich  in  the 
moderate  but  sufficient  sum  which  is  provided  annually  for  the  support  of  my  person  and 
my  position — rich  in  the  consolation  derived  from  witnessing  the  increasing  piety,  har¬ 
mony,  union,  zeal,  and  mutual  charity  of  the  people  committed  to  my  care — rich  in  the 
consciousness  that,  from  the  moment  I  was  reluctantly  induced  to  accept  the  office  in  the 
Church  of  which  I  then  felt  and  still  feel  myself  so  unworthy,  I  made  an  offering  of  my 
mind  and  heart,  and  life,  for  the  glory  of  God,  in-  promoting  the  spiritual  and  temporal 
welfare  of  the  flock  over  whom  I  was  placed  as  Pastor  by  the  great  Bishop  and  Shepherd 
of  our  souls. 

Sixthly. — Having  thus  shown  how  rich  a  man  I  am,  it  is  but  fair  now  that  I  should  state 
how  poor.  Fortunately,  the  temporal  affairs  of  my  diocese  are  in  good  order,  so  that  my 
successor,  were  I  to  die  to-morrow,  will  only  have  to  look  at  the  private  archives  to  under¬ 
stand,  at  a  glance,  the  actual  condition  of  matters  and  things.  As  representative  of  the 
diocese,  I  am  personally  indebted  to  the  amount  of  thirty  thousand  dollars.  But  by  way 
of  assets,  I  have  in  my  personal  right  an  amount  of  property  which  I  suppose,  if  its  value 
could  be  realized,  could  cover  the  debt.  Hr.  Brooks  and  his  associates  may  feel  an  interest 
in  knowing  of  what  these  assets  consist,  and  I  will  tell  him.  They  are  partly  bequests, 
partly  donations,  partly  the  hope  of  a  favorable  decision  in  regard  to  a  suit  which  was  in 
chancery  before  chancery  was  abolished.  Besides  this  property,  which  I  consider  as 
assets  against  my  debts,  I  am  the  owner  of  a  library  which  would  be  of  little  use  to  many 
of  those  who  take  an  interest  in  the  question  of  my  property,  hut  which  to  me  is  very 
valuable.  I  am  the  owner  of  a  part  of  the  furniture  of  the  house  in  which  I  live — but  only 
a  part.  Let  us  now  sum  up.  All  that  is  church  property  in  Manhattan  Island,  whether 
the  title  be  invested  in  me  or  not,  belongs  to  the  Catholics  of  Manhattan  Island,  and  not 
to  me.  When  this  deduction  is  made,  I  am  left  the  owner  of  my  library  and  a  part  of  the 
furniture  in  my  dwelling.  But  I  am  not  the  owner  of  one  square  inch  of  ground  within 
the  city  of  New  York.  I  am  the  owner  of  the  bed  I  sleep  on,  but  not  the  roof  or  the  walls 
that  protect  me  against  the  inclemency  of  the  season.  I  do  not,  however,  complain  of  my 
poverty,  for  I  am  not  poor.  I  know  that  any  one  invested  with  the  office  which  I  hold  in 
the  Church  of  God  is  the  more  honored  in  proportion  as  his  condition  assimulate  to  that 
of  his  Divine  Master,  who  had  not  whereon  to  lay  his  head.  And  it  would  be  an  especial 
reproach  to  me  to  be  the  successor  of  the  devoted  and  disinterested  Bishop  Dubois,  who 
died  so  poor  that  the  Catholics  of  his  cathedral  had  to  bear  the  expenses  of  his  funeral,  if 
I  disgraced  the  inheritance  of  his  office  by  grasping  at  and  appropriating  to  my  own  use 
any  more  of  the  things  of  the  world  than  are  necessary  to  provide  me  with  daily  food  and 
raiment. 

But  notwithstanding  all  this,  Senator  Brooks  will  have  to  give  some  account  of  the  four 
millions  seven  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars  which  he  said  was  the  value  of  my  pro¬ 
perty,  on  the  Cth  day  of  last  March. 

t  JOHN,  Archbishop  of  New  York. 

New  York,  April  28th. 

<»t> 

THE  “  PARCELS  OF  PROPERTY  ’’—THE  “  SQUARES  OF  LAND  ’’—THE  CON¬ 
VEYANCES  FROM  TRUSTEES,  &c.,  &c. 

To  the  Editor  of  the  N.  Y.  Courier  and  Enquirer  : 

I  congratulate  the  Archbishop  upon  that  degree  of  recovery  of  “  a  near  relative  of  his  ” 
which  enables  him  to  resume  his  pen.  I  am  sorry,  however,  to  see  that  the  Archbishop  is 
neither  improved  in  temper  nor  refreshed  in  style  by  the  brief  suspension  of  his  labors. 
He  continues  to  pile  up  epithets,  like  a  pyramid,  and  to-day  outdoes  himself.  He  charges 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN.  47 


me,  now,  with  “  falsehoods,  uttered,  deliberately ,”  “  brands  me  as  no  honorable  man 
would  suffer  himself  to  be  branded ,”  uses  the  words  “  thief  ”  and  “  theft,"  to  illustrate 
the  temper  of  his  mind,  and  heads  his  letter,  like  a  showman,  “  the  moral  degradation  of 
my  position.”  If  I  had  no  respect  for  myself  and  none  for  the  truth  of  the  case  at  issue, 
I  might  give  lie  for  “  lie  ”  and  brand  for  “  brand.”  But  in  dealing  with  an  Archbishop  I 
choose  rather  to  remember  his  high  and  holy  calling  than  his  low  example.  If  it  is  either 
good  manners,  sound  logic  or  true  religion  to  answer  a  proven  fact  with  such  words  as 
the  Archbishop  makes  familiar  to  his  lips  and  pen,  he  is  more  than  welcome  in  this  con¬ 
troversy  to  the  advantage  they  give  him. 

Once  upon  a  time  a  Scotch  Professor  of  King’s  College,  Cambridge,  setting  an  example 
which  an  Archbishop  might  imitate  with  honor,  was  asked  what  he  would  do  if  a  man 
told  him  he  was  a  liar  ?  “  What  would  I  do,”  said  he,  “  I  would  not  knock  him  down, 
but  I  would  tell  him  to  prove  it,  prove  it,  prove  it.  And  I  would  say  to  him  that  if  he 
couldn’t  prove  it,  he’d  be  the  liar,  and  then  I  should  have  him !”  The  Archbishop  may 
make  the  application,  and  the  public  will  judge  upon  the  evidence  given,  and  coming, 
whether  I  have  John  Hughes  or  John  Hughes  has  me. 

In  vindication  of  my  veracity,  and  to  relieve  myself  from  the  charge  of  falsehood,  I 
have  given  from  the  record  the  legal  conveyances  to  John  Hughes  of  thirty  pieces  or 
parcels  of  Property.  I  add  eleven  more  to-day,  and  the  end  is  not  yet.  What  I  said  in 
the  Senate  on  the  6th  of  March  last,  qualified  by  “  a  supposition  of  fact,”  and  from  data 
recorded  by  the  searches  of  “  a  friend  of  mine,”  as  to  the  main  fact, — which  the  Archbishop 
twice  directly  misstates  to-day,  will  turn  out  to  be  a  soberer  reality  than  the  Archbishop 
or  myself  ever  dreamed  of  when  I  called  public  attention  to  his  possessions,  and  when  he 
pronounced  my  statements  false.  The  work  of  investigation  is  only  fairly  commenced, 
and  I  shall  proceed  with  it  disregarding  all  irrelevancy  and  abuse. 

First,  now,  as  to  “  the  parcels  of  property,”  and  “  squares  of  land.”  I  enumerate  the 
thirty-two  lots  of  ground  on  50th  and  51st  streets,  in  two  parcels,  one  350  feet  by  210 
feet  10  inches,  and  the  other  105  by  85  feet.  This  would  make  one  or  two  handsome 
squares,  each  sufficiently  large  for  that  “  Eeastus  Brooks  Library,”  which  the  Arch¬ 
bishop  now  seeks  to  get  rid  of  by  an  open  plea  of  poverty.  The  pretence  comes  too  late, 
is  not  warranted  by  the  record,  was  not  denominated  in  the  bond,  and  I  therefore  claim 
the  fulfillment  of  a  promise  so  carefully  considered  and  so  deliberately  made.  The  Cathe¬ 
dral  Property  also  rests  upon  a  very  spacious  and  pretty  spot  of  ground,  and  upon  one 
quite  large  enough  both  for  the  Cathedral,  and  in  its  vacant  lots,  for  the  Library.  The 
Archbishop  may  preside  over  the  one,  and,  with  his  permission,  some  friend  of  mine,  over 
the  other.  There  is  also  another  very  pretty  square  at  Manhattanville,  which  would 
answer  very  well  for  the  library,  if  it  were  not  so  far  out  of  town,  and  another  Square, 
also  under  the  control  of  his  Grace,  between  the  First  Avenue  and  Avenue  A,  which  might, 
by  permission,  be  exchanged  for  some  property  more  favorably  situated,  for  a  public 
Institution  designed  “  for  the  use  not  of  any  one  profession,  or  class  of  men,  but  for  all 
mankind.” 

If  the  Archbishop  is  still  doubtful  about  those  “  squares  of  land,”  I  will  direct  his  at¬ 
tention  to  conveyance  No.  8,  100  by  100  feet,  No.  19,  which  is  quite  as  large,  No.  23,  from 
which  a  very  handsome  square  can  be  selected,  No.  24,  100  by  100,  No.  27,  100  by  102  feet 
and  two  inches.  (The  Archbishop  will  see  I  am  particular  now  as  to  the  two  inches.)  No. 
28,  100  by  103  feet  three  inches ,  No.  29,  143  feet  by  99  feet  ten  inches,  one  way,  and  134 
feet  the  other. — No.  30, 100  by  104  feet,  &c.,  &c.  It  would  weary  the  public,  the  Arch¬ 
bishop  and  myself,  to  cite  all  those  parcels  of  property  recorded  in  his  name,  which  would 
answer  very  well  for  an  edifice  so  honorable  to  his  promised  bounty,  and  which  would  per¬ 
petuate  his  name,  as  well  as  mine,  “  in  large  gilded  letters,”  to  the  latest  posterity. 

I  have  not  yet  deemed  it  necessary  to  enumerate  all  the  Archbishop’s  church  and  other 
possessions  in  this  city  and  elsewhere.  By  a  confession  of  his,  altogether  unexpected,  to 
myself,  he  admits,  what  it  was  almost  the  sole  purpose  of  this  branch  of  my  speech  in  the 
Senate  to  show,  that  he  was  a  large  owner  of  church  property.  This,  I  believe,  is 
what  the  lawyers  call  the  plea  of  “  confession  and  evidence,”  or  an  acknowledgment  of 
the  truth,  when  there  was  no  longer  power  to  evade  or  avoid  the  issue.  Here  is  “  the 
confession  and  evidence  :  ” — 

“  la  reference  to  my  ownership  of  the  real  estate  property,  as  Mr.  Brooks  calls  it,  there  is  no  question. 
The  title  of  many  Catholic  Churches  in  the  city  of  New  York  is  vested  in  me,  and  so  far  I  am  the  owner. 
My  intention,  even,  is  to  add  to  this  property  by  purchasing  such  additional  lots,  or  accepting  the  gift  of 

them,  as  I  may  find  from  time  to  time  to  be  desirable  for  the  purpose  of  providing  religious  instruction  for 
the  wants  of  the  Catholic  flock  committed  to  my  charge.  If  Mr.  Brooks  will  examine  the  records  of  the  city 
of  New  York  three  months  from  this  time,  he  will  probably  find  conveyances  made  to  me  by  parties  who  have 
the  right  to  sell  or  bestow,  as  they  think  proper.” 

This  admission  is  made  still  broader  in  the  letter  of  to-day.  The  “title  of  ownership,” 

then,  is  vested  in  the  Bishop.  The  pulpits  are  his.  The  keys  are  his.  Doors  are  open  and 
shut  at  his  own  good  will  and  pleasure.  Priests  come  and  go,  speak  and  act,  at  his  bid- 


48 


CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


ding.  The  congregations  are  his  servants.  One  may  not  even  say  Mass  over  the  soul  of 
the  dead,  except  the  dead  are  buried  where  the  Archbishop  prescribes  and  commands. 
Greenwood  and  Cypress  Hills,  Protestant  burial  places  everywhere,  are  now  all  un¬ 
sanctified  or  accursed  ground.  The  Archbishop  seeks  to  be  the  master  of  the  living,  aud 
to  prescribe  just  where  the  dead  shall  be  laid,  and  what  price  shall  be  paid  for  the  pri¬ 
vilege  of  interment.  But  more  of  this  hereafter.  I  am  dealing  with  a  living  man,  and  his 
estates  now, — and  with  one  who,  in  the  space  of  a  few  years,  has  come  into  the  possession 
not  merely  of  the  honors  of  an  Archbishopric,  but  of  princely  possessions,  and  all  as  the 
head  of  a  church,  whose  office,  I  had  supposed,  pledged  him  to  poverty.  It  is  not  every 
minister  of  the  Gospel  who  can  thus  suddenly  be  transformed  from  extreme  poverty,  to 
luxury,  with  country  seats,  retainers,  aud  bountiful  provisions  for  relatives  and  friends. 
Good  catholics  tell  me,— and  the  fact  seems  probably  enough  from  the  record,  however 
violently  denied, — that  the  Archbishop  is  more  attentive  to  the  fleece  than  to  ••  the  flock 
committed  to  his  charge.” 

I  must  remind  him,  too,  of  that  other  “confession  and  evidence  ”  of  his, — more  than  two 
years  old, — embodied  in  his  Circular  Letter  of  the  16th  of  March,  1852,  and  printed  in  the 
New  York  Freeman's  Journal,  wherein,  as  by  public  advertisement,  he  claimed  for  himself 
and  others,  a  full  legal  ownership  in  even  more  than  the  churches  of  their  respective  Dio¬ 
ceses.  The  Archbishop  then  said  : — 

“  That  the  Catholic  Bishops  of  New  York,  Albany  and  Buffalo^ARE  NOW  OWNERS  IN  FEE  SIMPLE  of 
nearly  all  religious  and  charitable  property  existing  within  their  respective  Ecclesiastical  jurisdictions  !  !’* 

When  the  Archbishop  again  charges  me  with  falsehood  he  will  realize  what  a  compound 
of  accusations  he  makes  against  himself.  In  self-defence  I  turn  him  over  now  to  his  cir¬ 
cular  letter  of  1852,  and  to  his  recent  declarations,  above  quoted  : — 

“  The  title  is  vested  in  me. 

“  I  AM  THE  OWNER,”  &C.,  &C. 

It  is  because  the  title  is  vested  in  him,  and  in  others  of  similar  power  and  state,  that 
Trustees  of  his  own  Church  have  prayed  the  Legislature  for  redress.  Those  who  build 
Churches  themselves  claim  the  right,  having  paid  for  them  with  their  own  money,  of 
governing  the  Church  temporalities  as  they  please.  The  Legislature  of  this  State  have 
answered  their  prayers  affirmatively,  and  hence  the  anathemas  which  he  has,  in  his  ebuli- 
tious  of  temper,  exhausted  upon  me  rather  than  upon  the  State. 

But  I  shall  continue  my  record  of  conveyances  to-day,  and  hereafter,  to  show  how  far 
the  Archbishop  has  been  justified  in  accusing  me  of  falsehood.  I  hope  to  be  excused  for 
thus  furnishing  him  with  small  doses  at  a  time.  It  is  a  rule  of  practice  with  skillful  men 
of  the  Faculty,  I  believe,  not  to  kill  but  to  cure,  and  hence  the  necessity  of  continuing 
these  prescriptions  from  day  to  day.  I  may  not  restore  the  Archbishop  to  a  sane  state  ot 
mind,  nor  to  equanimity  of  bearing,  but  it  is  enough  for  me  to  know  that  if  I  have  opened 
public  wounds,  so  that  the  community  can  behold  them,  as  they  are,  the  exposure  may 
lead  to  a  speedier  cure  of  the  disease  than  would  have  resulted  from  concealment. 


CONVEYANCES  TO  JOHN  HUGHES. 


NUMBER  THIRTY-ONE. 


Thomas  Fan-ell,!  Date  of  Con.  June  7th,  1S54.  Re- 
Clergyman,  I  cord  in  liber  663,  p.  366,  June  15, 
to  f  1S54.  Consideration,  one  dol- 

J  ohn  Hughes.  J  lar. 


All  those  certain  two  lots,  pieces  or  parcels  of 
ground,  situate,  lying  and  being  in  the  13th  Ward  of 
the  city  of  New  York,  on  east  side  of  Pitt  street,  be¬ 
tween  Delancey  and  Rivington  streets,  known  by  the 
street  numbers  54  and  36  Pitt  street,  said  lots  being 
each  24  feet  in  width  in  front  and  rear,  and  100  feet 
in  depth,  be  the  said  dimensions  more  or  less. 


THIRTY-TWO. 


Edw’d  C.  Richards,  and ' 
Emily  M.,  his  wife, 
to 

John  Hughes.  J 


Deed  dated  Dec.  1,  1S52. 
Consideration,  $2,500. 
Recorded  in  liber  622,  p. 
101. 


THIRTY -THREE. 


Charles  Toal,  and 
Ann,  his  wife, 
to 

John  Hughes. 


(April  15th,  1S5-,  date  of  Con.) 
Record  in  liber  658,  p.  669, 
May  8th,  1854,  Consideration 
$20,000. 


All  that  certain  lot  of  land  situate,  lying,  and  be¬ 
ing  in  the  4th  Ward  of  the  City  of  New  Y'ork,  and 
the  building  thereon  erected,  now  known  as  the 
Mariner’s  Church,  being  lot  No.  1067  on  the  Tax 
Commissioner’s  map  of  4th  Ward,  and  bounded  and 
described  as  follows : — Beginning  on  W.  side  of 
Roosevelt  street,  at  a  point  distant  157  feet  and  11 
inches  N.  from  NW.  corner  of  Roosevelt  and  Cherry 
streets,  running  thence  W.  and  at  right  angles  to 
Roosevelt  street,  61  feet  and  4  inches  thence  N.  and 
parallel  with  Roosevelt,  71  feet  4  inches  thence  E. 
60  feet  10  inches  to  W.  side  of  Roosevelt  street, 
thence  S.  along  W.  side  of  Roosevelt  st.  71  feet  4 
inches  to  the  point  or  place  of  beginning. 


TniRTY-FOCR. 


Mathew  Flynn,  and 
Margaret,  his  wife, 
to 

John  Hughes. 


Date  of  Con.  April  6th,  1S54. 
Record  in  liber  661,  p.  S6, 
April  7th,  1S54.  Considera¬ 
tion  $6,000. 


AU  those  two  certain  lots  of  land  situate,  lying, 
and  being  in  16th  Ward  of  the  City  of  New  York, 
and  bounded  taken  together,  as  follows: — Beginning 
at  a  point  on  the  N.  line  of  25th  st.,  distant  400  feet 
E.  from  NE.  corner  of  9th  avenue  and  25th  street, 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN. 


49 


running  thence  E.  along  said  N.  line  50  feet  thence 
N.  parallel  with  9th  avenue,  9S  feet  9  inches  to  mid¬ 
dle  of  block  between  25th  and  26th  streets,  and  to 
a  point  equi-distant  from  the  two,  thence  W.  paral¬ 
lel  with  25th  street  50  feet,  thence  S.  in  a  straight 
line  to  place  of  beginning. 

THIRTY -FITE. 

Jas.  D.  Oliver,  and)  Date  of  Conveyance,  May  1st, 

Sarah,  his  wife,  I  1S50.  Record  in  liber  599, 
to  (  p.  700,  May  1st,  1S52.  Con- 

John  Hughes,  j  sideration,  $3,500. 

All  that  certain  lot  or  parcel  of  land,  situate  in 
city  of  New  York,  on  north  side  19th  street,  former¬ 
ly  a  part  of  the  old  Warren  road,  which  was  closed 
by  Corporation  of  the  City  of  New  York,  and  known 
and  distinguished  on  map  No.  10,  of  an  atlas  made 
by  Edwin  Smith,  City  Surveyor,  in  the  month  of 
April,  1S35,  and  entitled  atlas  of  that  part  of  the  12th 
Ward  of  the  City  of  New  York,  between  14th  and 
21st  streets,  by  the  number  2,495,  bounded  on  the 
south,  in  front,  by  19th  street,  on  the  west  by  lot 
number  2,494,  on  the  north,  in  the  rear,  by  lot  num¬ 
ber  2,805  on  said  map,  and  on  the  east  by  the  centre 
line  of  the  old  Warren  road,  being  about  20  feet 
wide,  more  or  less,  in  front  and  rear,  and  about  90 
feet  1  inch  deep,  more  or  less.  Also,  all  that  certain 
other  lot  or  parcel  of  land  situate  in  City  of  New 
York,  adjoining  the  lot  or  parcel  above ’described, 
bounded  on  the  south  in  front  by  19th  street,  on  the 
west  by  lot  number  2,493  on  the  aforesaid  map,  on 
the  north  in  the  rear  by  lot  belonging  now  or  late  to 
John  F.  Winslow,  and  on  the  east  by  lot  number  2,- 
495,  being  about  26  feet  7  inches  wide  (more  or  less) 
in  front,  about  23  feet  4  inches  wide  on  rear,  about 
90  feet  deep  on  the  west  side,  and  about  90  feet  1 
inch  deep  on  the  east  side. 

THIRTY-SIX. 

Stephen  C.  Burdett,  1  Date  of  Con.,  Nov.  27th,  1S52. 
and  Eliza,  his  wife,  1  Record  in  liber  609,  p.  305. 
to  (  Dec.  1st,  1S52.  Considera- 

John  Hughes.  J  tion,  $4,800. 

All  those  certain  lots,  pieces  or  parcels  of  land, 
situate,  lying  and  being  in  the  former  12th,  late  16th, 
now  ISth  Ward  of  the  City  of  New  York,  which  said 
lots  are  bounded  and  described  as  follows,  to  wit : — 
Beginning  at  a  lot  on  the  southwest  side  of  29th  st. 
distant  100  feet  northwest  from  southwest  corner  of 
3d  avenue  and  29th  street,  running  thence  south¬ 
west  on  a  line  parallel  with  3d  avenue  93  feet  and  9 
inches  to  the  centre  line  of  the  block  between  2Sth 
and  29th  streets,  thence  running  northwest  along 
said  centre  line  45  feet,  thence  northeast  on  a  line 
parallel  with  3d  Avenue  98  feet  and  9  inches  to  29th 
street,  and  thence  southeast  along  29th  street  45  feet, 
to  place  of  beginning. 


THIRTY-SEVEN. 

Wm.  H.  De  G-root,  and  )  Date  of  Con.,  April  15, 1S53. 

Alice,  his  wife,  (  Recorded  in  liber  641,  p. 

to  (  79,  April  19,  1S58.  Con- 

John  Hughes.  )  sideration,  $1,400. 

All  those  two  certain  lots^  pieces,  or  parcels  of 
land,  situate,  lying,  and  being  in  the  —  Ward  of  the 
City,  County,  and  State  of  New  York,  Bounded  and 
described  as  follows:  Beginning  at  a  point  on  the 
southerly  side  of  84th  street,  distant  220  feet  westerly 
from  the  southwest  corner  of  84th  street  and  4th 
Avenue,  running  thence  westerly  along  the  south 
side  of  S4th  street  50  feet,  running  thence  south  and 
parallel  with  4th  Avenue  102  feet  and  2  inches,  run¬ 
ning  thence  east  and  parallel  with  84th  street50feet, 
and  thence  north  and  parallel  with  the  4th  Avenue 
102  feet  andf2  inches,  to  place  of  beginning. 

THIRTY-EIGHT. 


Daniel  Camming,  silversmith, 
and 

Mary,  his  wife, 
to 

John  Hughes. 


Date  of  Con.,  April 
28,  1S53.  Record 
in  liber  640,  p.  3S2, 
May  2, 1S53.  Con¬ 
sideration,  $8,000. 


All  that  certain  lot,  piece,  or  parcel  of  land,  situ¬ 
ate,  lying,  and  being  in  the  6th  Ward  of  City  of  New 
York,  and  now  known  by  street  number  29  Mott 
street,  and  bounded  and  described  as  follows,  on  a 
map  thereof,  made  by  Edward  Ludlam,  City  Survey¬ 
or,  dated  New  York,  December,  1S4S,  and  filed  in 
Office  of  the  Register  of  City  and  County  New  York, 
24th  April,  1S50,  that  is  to  say:  Easterly  in  front,  by 
westerly  side  Mott  street,  19  feet  and  9  inches  ; 
southerly,  by  land  now  or  late  of  Zion  Church,  86 
feet  10  inches  ;  westerly  by  land  now  or  late  of  Lu¬ 
ther  Baldwin,  and  lands  now  or  late  of  the  estate  of 
Cornelius  Schenck,  26  feet  and  2  inches  ;  and  north¬ 
erly  by  land  now  or  late  of  John  G.  Flammer,  87  feet 
and  7  inches,  as  laid  down  on  said  map. 

THIRTY-NINE. 

Henry  Heyward,  and  )  Date  of  Con.,  November  27, 
Tefa,  his  wife,  (  1S52.  Recorded  in  liber 

to  (  609,  p.342.  Consideration, 

John  Hughes.  )  $8,000. 

All  those  four  certain  lots,  pieces,  or  parcels  of 
land,  situate,  lying,  and  being  on  former  12th,  late 
16th,  now  18th  Ward  of  City  of  New  York,  which  said 
lots,  taken  together,  are  bounded  and  described  as 
follows,  to  wit :  Beginning  at  a  point  on  N.  side  23th 
street,  distant  120  feet  W.  from  N.W.  corner  of  2Sth 
street  and  3d  Avenue,  running  thence  N.  and  paral¬ 
lel  with  3d  Avenue,  93  feet  and  9  inches  to  centre 
line  of  block  between  2Sth  and  29th  streets  ;  thence 
W.  along  said  centre  line,  25  feet;  thence  again  N. 
and  parallel  with  3d  Avenue,  98  feet  and  9  inches  to 
the  S.  side  29th  street ;  thence  again  W.  along  S. 
side  29th  street,  50  feet ;  thence  S.  parallel  with  3d 
Avenue,  9S  feet  9  inches  to  the  centre  line  of  the 
block;  thence  E.  along  said  centre  line,  25  feet; 
thence  again  S.  parallel  with  3d  Avenue,  98  feet  and 
9  inches  to  N.  side  of  2Sth  street  aforesaid;  and 
thence  again  E.  along  2Sth  street,  50  feet  to  place  of 
beginning ;  each  of  said  lots  being  25  feet  in  width, 
on  front  and  rear,  and  98  feet  9  inches  in  length,  on 
each  side. 

FORTY. 

Watson  B.trentiss  )  Date  of  Con.,  August  1st,  1S53. 

f  Recorded  in  liber  645,  page 
(  201,  August  31st,  1S53.  Con- 

John  Hughes.  ;  sideration,  $4,700. 

All  that  certain  lot,  piece,  or  parcel  of  land,  situ¬ 
ate,  lying,  and  being  on  S.  side  of  Sth  street,  in  11th 
Ward  of  City  of  New  York,  and  which  is  bounded  and 
described  as  follows,  viz. :  Commencing  at  a  point  on 
said  S.  side  of  Sth  street,  distant  115  feet  S.E.  from 
the  corner  formed  by  the  intersection  of  the  E.  side 
of  Avenue  B  and  the  S.  side  of  Sth  street,  and  run¬ 
ning  thence  S.W.,  and  in  a  line  parallel  with  Avenue 
B,  97  feet  4  inches  to  centre  line  of  block  between 
7th  and  Sth  streets;  thence  southeast  along  said 
centre  line  of  the  said  block,  and  in  a  line  parallel 
with  8th  street,  25  feet  to  the  line  of  a  lot  numbered 
on  the  Ward  map  of  the  said  11th  Ward  as  2551 ; 
thence  northeast  along  the  line  of  said  last-men¬ 
tioned  lot,  and  in  a  line  parallel  with  Avenue  B,  97 
feet  4  inches,  to  the  south  line  of  Sth  street;  and 
thence  northeast  along  said  south  line  of  Sth  street, 
25  feet,  to  the  place  of  beginning. 

FORTY-ONE. 

Rector,  Wardens,  and  )  Date  of  Con.,  April  30th, 
Yestry  of  Zion  Church,  f  1853.  Recorded  in  liber 

to  (  640,  p.  380,  May  2d,  1S53. 

John  Hughes.  ;  Consideration,  $30,000, 

All  that  certain  piece  or  parcel  of  ground,  situate 

in  Mott  street  in  6th  Ward  of  city  N.  Y.,  with  the 
church  edifice  and  school-house  thereon  erected, 
bounded  and  containing  as  follows :  E.  in  front  by 
Mott  street,  W.  in  rear  partly  by  ground  now  or  late 
of  James  Miller,  partly  by  ground  now  or  late  of 
James  Wellers ;  and  partly  by  ground  now  or  late  of 
James  McKay ;  S.  by  Cross  street ;  and  N.  by  ground 

now  or  late  of - Williams,  containing  together  in 

breadth  in  front  on  Mott  street,  S3  feet  4  inches,  in 
the  rear  86  feet,  and  in  length  on  each  side  S5  feet. 


CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


50 


I  have  nothing  to  do  now  with  the  Archbishop’s  elaborated  charges  against  the  “bank¬ 
ruptcy  of  no  less  than  four  boards  of  Catholic  lay  trustees  in  this  city  alone but  I  claim 
much  for  the  extorted  admission,  that  “  it  has  been  the  practice ,”  since  this  bankruptcy, 
“  t0  invest  the  title  of  new  churches  ix  the  bishop,”  and  that — 

“  This  was  conformable  to  the  discipline  of  the  Catholic  Church  as  regulated  by  the  Provincial  Councils  of 
Baltimore.” 

But  the  Archbishop  goes  on  to  threaten  nullification  or  disobedience  to  the  Church  Pro¬ 
perty  Law.  The  other  day,  he  told  the  public  that  “professional  gentlemen  were  to  dis¬ 
cover  some  defect  in  the  framing  and  wording  of  the  enactment,  which  will  render  it 
inapplicable .”  Now  we  are  more  boldly  informed  that  nothing — 

“  Less  than  coercion  will  induce  them  to  put  their  property,  and  their  reputation  as  a  religions  community, 
at  the  irresponsible  disposal  of  lay  trustees,  armed  with  legal  power  to  mortgage  their  property,  and  impose 
upon  them,  as  has  been  done  already,  the  burden  of  debts  by  which  their  churches  may  become  bankrupt, 
and  sold  for  the  benefit  of  creditors.” 

And  again : 


“  And  whatever  law  the  state  may  pass,  there  iB  one  thing  certain,  that  nothing  less  than  coercion  will 
induce  the  Catholics  to  discontinue  or  withdraw  the  confidence  which  they  have  in  their  bishops  as  the  natu¬ 
ral  guardians  of  such  property.” 


We  shall  see  whether  the  one-man  power  of  the  Archbishop,  or  the  sovereign  law  of  the 
People  of  the  State  of  New  York  will  prevail. 

Nor  do  I  believe  that  the  Archbishop’s  churches  in  this  city  are  so  poor  in  means  or  in 
men,  that  Catholic  lay  Trustees  cannot  be  found  of  sufficient  capacity  and  integrity  to  ad¬ 
minister  the  dollar  and  cent  Temporalities  of  the  Church,  quite  as  well  as  one  who,  to¬ 
wards  the  end  of  a  letter, — beginning  with  such  words  as  “  deliberate  falsehoods,”  “  brand,” 
“  theft,”  &c.,  &c. — tells  us  in  w'ords  of  meekness  that  he  has  made  “  an  offering  of  his 
mind  and  heart  and  life  for  the  glory  of  God  in  promoting  the  spiritual  and  temporal  wel¬ 
fare  of  the  Cock  over  whom  he  (I)  was  placed  as  a  Pastor  by  the  great  Bishop  and  Shep¬ 
herd  of  our  souls.” 

The  text  and  context,  in  the  judgment  of  even  worldly  men,  will  not  harmonize  with 
each  other. 

But  while  acknowledging  titles  in  churches  and  other  property,  the  Archbishop  now 
seeks  for  sympathy  by  pleading  poverty.  He  owns,  he  tells  us,  “  a  library,  and  part  of  the 
furniture  of  the  house  in  which  he  lives.”  It  almost  excites  one’s  commiseration  to  read 
such  doleful,  lamb-like  statements  as  the  following  : — 


11 1  am  the  owner  of  the  bed  I  sleep  on,  but  not  of  the  roof  or  the  walls  that  protect  me  from  the  inclemency 
of  the  seasons.  I  do  not  however  complain  of  my  poverty,  for  I  am  not  poor.  I  know  that  any  one  invested 
with  the  office  which  I  hold  in  the  Church  of  God  is  the  more  honored  in  proportion  as  his  condition  assimi¬ 
lates  to  that  of  his  Divine  Master,  who  had  not  whereon  to  lay  his  head.” 


Alas!  that  one  thus  invested  with  the  office  of  Bishop  “  in  the  Church  of  God,”  should 
so  far  forget  the  precepts  and  example  of  “  his  Divine  Master  ”  as  to  indulge  in  the  foul 
language  1  have  quoted,  and  in  a  denial  of  the  statements  I  have  proved. 

The  Archbishop  in  this  Diocese  has  assumed  a  power  over  Church  Property  and  Catho¬ 
lics,  unknown  to  the  priesthood  in  many  of  the  Catholic  Governments  of  Europe.  The 
oppression  and  despotism  exercised  here  would  not  be  tolerated  there.  It  is  an  arbitrary 
exercise  of  power,  both  over  the  living  and  the  dead.  We  exhibit,  therefore,  in  a  Gov¬ 
ernment  eminently  Protestant,  which  separates  Church  and  State,  and  which  forbids  all 
interference  in  matters  of  faith,  the  strange  anomaly  of  a  Priesthood  not  only  holding 
property  worth  millions  in  value,  but  ruling  the  members  of  his  church  with  a  rod  of  iron. 

But  the  wolf  now  clothes  himself  in  lamb’s  wool,  and  cries  humility,  penance,  and  pov¬ 
erty.  He  who  has  time  and  money  to  visit  the  island  of  Cuba,  the  gem  of  the  seas,  to 
pass  a  season  of  delightful  luxury  amidst  tropical  fruits  and  flowers,  when  thousands  of 
liis  poor  dock  are  cold  and  hungry  at  home, — who  spends  days  and  weeks  of  delightful 
ease  within  the  walls  of  Rome, — whose  steps  are  familiar  with  the  interior  splendors  of 
the  Vatican  and  the  Quirinal, — who  has  studied  Theology  from  the  Laocoon,  and  Poverty 
in  the  summer  gardens  of  the  Pope, — to  whom  the  Sistine  Chapel,  decorated  with  Ra¬ 
phaels  and  Michael  Angelos,  are  as  household  objects, — who  can  fly  for  pleasure  from  the 
city  to  Newfoundland,  to  the  Lakes,  to  the  Springs,  or  to  Newport, — who  has  a  town  resi¬ 
dence  and  a  country  seat, — now  appears  before  the  people  to  state,  “  how  poor  I  am,”  and 
to  declare  that  his  bed,  his  books,  and  his  furniture,  in  part,  are  his  only  worldly  fortune  ! 

But  enough  for  to-day. 

Very  respectfully  yours, 

ERASTUS  BROOKS. 

New  York,  April  30,  1855. 


A 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN. 


51 


SENATOR  BROOKS  NOT  ALTOGETHER  DEAD  TO  THE  MORAL  DEGRADA¬ 
TION  OF  HIS  CONDITION. 

To  the  Editors  of  the  Courier  and  Enquirer: 

Our  Senator  has  a  vague  idea  of  respectability,  under  the  influence  of  which  he  intimates 
that  falsehoods,  with  the  deliberate  utterance  of  which  he  is  charged,  and  with  which  no 
honorable  man  would  suffer  himself  to  be  branded,  are  by  no  means  complimentary  to  him. 
But  it  is  impossible  to  relieve  him  from  these  charges.  Falsehood  he  has  been  guilty  of  in 
almost  every  paragraph  of  his  speech  on  the  6th  of  March,  and  of  his  writings  in  reference 
to  it  since. 

For  the  present,  I  shall  only  enumerate  the  last  falsehood  from  his  pen.  It  is  found  in 
the  following  words,  viz. : 

“  First,  now  as  to  the  parcels  of  property  and  squares  of  land,  I  enumerate  the  thirty-two  lots  of  ground,  on 
50th  and  51st  streets,  in  two  parcels ;  one  three  hundred  and  fifty  feet  by  two  hundred  and  ten  feet  ten  inches, 
and  the  other  one  hundred  and  five  feet  by  eighty-five.” 

When  Mr.  Brooks  wrote  this,  he  knew  as  well  as  I  do,  that  I  am  not  the  owner  of  a  soli¬ 
tary  square  inch  of  ground  on  50th  or  51st  street ;  and,  with  this  knowledge  in  his  mind, 
Mr.  Erastus  Brooks  has  exhibited  himself  in  the  light  of  a  man  who  has  no  regard  for 
veracity,  and  who  is,  therefore,  utterly  unworthy  of  notice.  I  take  him,  consequently,  with 
covered  hands,  to  the  nearest  open  sash  of  a  window,  and  send  him  forth,  with  the  single 
mental  observation —  “  Go  hence,  wretched  and  vile  insect :  the  world  has  space  for  you 
as  well  as  for  me.” 

t  JOHN,  Archbishop  of  New  York. 

New  Yoke,  May  1st,  1855. 


THE  PARCELS  OF  PROPERTY— SQUARES  OF  LAND— THE  WAY  AN  ARCH¬ 
BISHOP  DISMISSES  AN  ANTAGONIST. 

To  the  Editors  of  the  Courier  and  Enquirer  : 

The  Archbishop  is  as  profuse  of  epithets  as  ever.  To-day,  he  is  brief  in  words  and 
abundant  in  accusations.  In  a  single  paragraph  he  dismisses  me,  not  for  good  I  hope,  in 
the  following  laconic  and  amiable  manner : 

I  take  him  consequently,  with  covered  hands,  to  the  nearest  open  sash  of  a  window,  and  send  him  forth, 
with  the  single  mental  observation —  c  Go  hence,  wretched  and  vile  insect :  the  world  has  space  for  you  as 
well  as  me.’ 

“  t  John,  Archbishop  of  New  York.” 

Preliminary  to  this,  are  charges  that  “  almost  every  paragraph  of  my  speech  on  the  Cth 
of  March,  and  of  my  writings  in  reference  to  it  since,  are  false.”  I  am  “  branded, ”  too, 
again  and  again,  as  “guilty  of  deliberate  falsehood.”  a3  “no  honorable  man,”  &c.,  &c. 
Having  sufficiently  damned  and  accursed  me  with  his  official  f.  I  am  taken  with  covered 
hands  to  the  nearest  window,  and  dismissed  “  as  a  wretched  and  vile  insect .” 

But,  good  Archbishop,  I  am  not  to  be  so  dismissed.  You  commenced  the  war,  and  I 
intend  to  end  it.  If  the  insect  has  stung  you,  and  you  have  been  unable  either  to  heal  the 
wound  or  have  the  sting  extracted,  it  is  your  fault,  not  mine.  There  is  somethin^  to  me 
even  more  ludicrous  than  wicked,  if  possible,  in  the  bitterness  and  boldness  of  your  denials 
of  the  truth,  and  in  the  frequency  of  your  personalities.  Early  in  life,  I  was  taught  that, 
in  controversies  and  intercourse  among  men,  no  gentleman  ever  insults  another,  and 
nobody  else  can.  I  know  the  advantage  I  have  over  you  in  this  respect,  and  mean  to 
maintain  it  to  the  end,  by  an  absence  of  all  foul  epithets,  and  all  exhibitions  of  bad  tem¬ 
per.  You  forced  me  into  this  controversy,  by  reiterated  charges  of  falsehood.  You 
endeavored  to  hold  me  up  to  contempt,  by  satire  and  ridicule,  and  finding  that  your  curses 
upon  me,  Lke  chickens,  have  come  home  to  roost  upon  yourself,  and  that  your  satire  and 
ridicule  have  rebounded  to  the  point  from  whence  they  started,  you  now,  “  with  covered 
hand,”  would  throw  the  insect  from  the  window  into  the  street— that  is,  if  he  would  let 
you.  I  shall  buzz  under  you  window,  during  my  own  good  time,  and,  may  be,  find  ingress 
again  within  your  Grace’s  quarters.  ° 

This  controversy  commenced  in  an  attempt  to  show  that  you  were  a  large  owner,  law¬ 
fully,  and  in  your  own  name,  of  property,  and  that  it  was  repugnant  to  the  spirit  of  our 


CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


Government  for  Ecclesiastics  to  Be  large  possessors  of  Church  Property.  It  was  inciden¬ 
tally  stated  by  me  that  you  received  some  of  this  Property  from  Trustees.  ’  It  was  also 
stated  that  you  owned  several  plats  and  squares  of  land,  nearly  all  of  them  of  great  value. 
I  named  several  parcels  of  this  character,  in  the  recorded  conveyances  of  the  city,  as,  for 
example,  Nos.  8,  19,  23,  24,  27,  28,  29,  30,  Arc.  These  more  than  made  good  my  declara¬ 
tion  in  the  Senate. 

I  also  alluded  to  the  thirty-two  lots  opposite  the  Deaf  and  Dumb  Institution,  which,  after 
great  trouble,  I  found,  through  a  friend,  recorded,  not  in  the  Register’s  office,  but  in  the 
office  of  the  Comptroller. — [Book  A  of  Deeds,  page  271.  Date,  August  1st,  184G.]  I 
found  your  name  acknowledging  the  gift  of  this  splendid  public  property  from  this  city, 
for  the  benefit  of  the  Roman  Catholics  over  whom  you  are  the  Chief.  I  found  a  receipt 
for  this  property  signed  “John  Hughes,”  President,  and  by  your  Secretary,  M.  O. 
Donnelly. 

Now,  sir,  though  I  was  warranted  in  saying  you  owned  this  property,  after  your  circular 
letter  of  the  llith  of  March,  1852,  declaring  that  you  did  own  “  in  fee  simple,”  ‘L  nearly 
all  charitable  and  religious  property  existing  in  your  Diocese,”  and  after  your  admis¬ 
sion,  in  a  letter  to  the  public,  that  “  titles  were  invested  in  me  ” — John  Hughes — “  I,” 
John  Hughes — “am  the  owner,”  and  “my  intention  is  even  to  add  to  this  property  by 
purchasing  additional  lots,”  &c.,  I  did  not,  as  you  very  well  knowr,  rely  upon  this  rich 
possession,  received  by  you,  to  prove  your  ownership  in  City  Property  generally,  or  in 
squares.  The  public,  who  read  your  letters  and  mine  (and  it  is  my  highest  wish  that  they 
should  read  both  sides  of  the  discussion),  will  condemn  yon  both  for  the  omission  of  the 
record  of  Conveyances,  and  the  parade  you  make  of  these  thirty-two  lots  of  ground, 
which,  with  the  Property  made  over  to  you,  your  heirs,  and  assignees,  you  call  the 
“property  of  God,”  aud  thus  evade  the  real,  and  almost  the  only  point' at  issue. 

It  was  only  on  the  last  Sabbath,  when  speaking,  in  Brooklyn,  of  the  question  of  tempo¬ 
ralities,  you  declared  to  the  congregation  that  it  would  be  “  a  calamity  for  them  and  the 
sanctuary  to  have  persons  placed  between  thetn  and  the  sanctuary  of  this  holy  temple,  as 
middle  men,  touching  with  profane  hand  the  sanctuary  of  which  they  should  stand  in 
awe,  and  sinking  your  church  in  debt  even  though  you  (they)  had  freed  it  from  all 
responsibility.” 

And  again  you  said  : — 

“  But  you,  in  the  meantime,  should  he  faithful  to  Almighty  God,  and  not  permit  men — well  meaning  men  if 
you  please,  but  incompetent  between  the  clergy  and  the  faithful  laity  of  the  Catholic  Church — between  you 
and  the  devoted  pastor  whom  you  so  much  respect.” 


Herein  is  shown  your  disrespect  for  popular  intelligence  and  popular  right,  and  your 
determination,  notwithstanding  the  law  of  the  State,  not  to  allow  Lay  Trustees  to  con¬ 
trol  the  Temporalities  of  the  Church. 

But  let  me  compromise  with  you  in  regard  to  the  squares  on  50th  and  51st  streets,  by 
substituting,  if  you  prefer  it,  the  property  in  Manhattauville,  adjoining  C.  W.  Lawrence’s 
residence.  This  property  covers  four  acres  of  ground,  cost  $32,500,  aud  has  the  dwelling 
and  grounds  of  the  Archbishop — though  he  would  probably  call  it,  “the  property  of 
God  ” — while  making  the  best  possible  use  of  it  for  himself  and  friends,  as  he  does  with 
the  most  beautiful  portion  of  the  property  at  Fordham. 

I  now  add — the  “  Catholic  Almanac,”  for  the  current  year  being  my  authority — the  fol¬ 
lowing  record  of  Romau  Catholic  Church  Property  in  this  city  at  this  time.  I  take  the 
word  of  the  Archbishop  himself,  that  he  is,  by  the  Baltimore  Ordinances  of  ’49  and  '52 — 
by  his  Circular  Letter  of  March,  1852,  by  his  Sermon  on  last  Sabbath,  against  “  middle 
men  touching  with  profane  hands,  the  sanctuary  of  which  they  should  stand  in  awe  ” 
— the  controller,  director,  and  practical  owner,  even  where  the  title  does  not  rest  in  him, 
of  all  this  property.  Added,  to  what  has  not  before  been  enumerated,  the  reader  will  be 
enabled  to  form  some  estimate  of  its  value,  by  the  price  it  would  command  in  market,  if 
offered  for  sale.  I  think  the  value  of  the  whole  “  is  not  much  short  of  live  millions  of 
dollars,”  aud  that  the  value  of  the  Property,  owned  or  controlled  by  the  Archbishop,  even 
in  his  territorially  very  limited  Diocese,  is  worth  a  great  deal  more. 


Cathedral  of  St.  Patrick,  between  Prince  and  Hous¬ 
ton  streets. 

St.  Peter’s,  Barclay  street. 

St.  Mary’s,  corner  of  Grand  and  Ridge  street. 

St.  Joseph’s,  6th  Avenue,  corner  of  West  Washing¬ 
ton  Place. 

St.  James’,  James  street. 

Transfiguration,  Mott  street. 

St.  Nicholas’,  Second  street. 

St.  Andrew’s,  Duane  street,  corner  of  City  Hall 
Place. 

Church  of  the  Nativity,  2d  Avenue.  « 


St.  Vincent  de  Paul,  Canal  street. 

Church  of  the  Most  Holy  Redeemer,  Third  street. 
St.  John  Baptist,  80th  street. 

St.  Columba’s,  25th  street. 

St.  Francis’,  31st  street. 

St.  Alphonsus’,  Thompson  street. 

St.  John’s,  Evangelist,  50th  street. 

St.  Paul’s,  Harlem,  117th  street. 

St.  Bridget’s,  corner  of  8th  street  and  Avenue  B. 
St.  Stephen’s,  Madison  Avenue,  corner  of  27th 
street. 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN. 


53 


St.  Francis  Xavier’s,  16th  street,  between  5th  and 
6th  Avenues. 

St.  Ann’s,  8th  street,  between  Broadway  and  4th 
Avenue. 

St.  Lawrence’s,  84th  street. 

Church  of  the  Holy  Cross,  42d  street. 


Convent  of  the  Sacred  Heart,  Manhattanville. 

St.  Catharine’s  Convent  of  Sisters  of  Mercy,  Hous¬ 
ton  and  Mulberry  streets. 

Mount  St.  Vincent’s  Mother  House,  between  5th 
and  6th  Avenues. 

Manhattanville  Church  of  the  Assumption. 


I  have  how  to  add  the  following  to  the  City 

CONVEYANCES  TO  JOHN  HUGHES. 


NUMBER  FORTY-TWO. 


Abner  Benedict,  and 
Hannah  Catharine,  his  wife, 


Date  of  Con.,  March 
8,  1S44.  Recorded 
in  liber  443,  p.  446, 
March  16th,  1844. 
Consid.,  $1,950. 


to 

John  Hughes. 

All  and  singular  those  six  several  lots,  pieces,  par¬ 
cels,  and  gores  of  land,  situate,  lying,  and  being  on 
north  side  of  31st  street,  in  the  16th  (late  12th)  Ward 
of  the  City  of  New  York,  and  laid  down  and  distin¬ 
guished  upon  a  certain  map  made  Sept.  18th,  1S35, 
by  Sami.  S.  Doughty,  City  Surveyor,  and  filed  in  the 
office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  Court  of  Chancery,  and  upon 
which  said  map  the  said  several  lots,  pieces,  parcels, 
and  gores  of  land,  hereby  intended  to  be  conveyed, 
are  known  and  distinguished  as  numbers  4,  5,  6,  41, 

42,  and  43,  the  dimensions  of  the  several  lots,  pieces, 
parcels,  and  gores  of  land  above  mentioned  being 
laid  down  and  particularly  specified  on  the  map 
above  referred  to. 

NUMBER  FORTY-THREE. 

Michael  Curran,  jr.,  )  Date  of  Con.,  Oct.  30th,  1849. 

to  V  Record,  in  liber  529,  p.  173, 

John  Hughes.  )  Oct.  30th,  1849.  Consid.,  $1. 

All  that  certain  lot,  piece  or  parcel  of  land,  with  the 
improvements  thereon,  situate,  lying,  and  being  in 
the  12th  Ward  of  the  City  of  New  York:  Beginning 
at  the  N.E.  corner  of  5th  Avenue  and  50th  street, 
and  running  thence  N.  along  the  E.  side  of  5th  Ave¬ 
nue,  100  feet  and  5  inches  to  a  point  equi-distant 
from  50th  and  51st  streets ;  thence  E.  and  parallel 
with  50th  street,  100  feet ;  thence  S.  and  parallel 
with  5th  Avenue,  100  feet  and  5  inches  to  50th  street : 
thence  W.  along  50th  street,  100  feet,  to  place  of 
beginning. 

NUMBER  FORTY-FOUR. 

Wm.  Wood  and  Edward  Wood,)  Date  of  Con.,  May 

Executors  of  John  Wood,  1,  1S50.  Record. 

+n  J-  in  liber  37S,  page 

372,  June  12th, 

John  Hughes.  J  1851.  Con.,  $700. 

All  that  certain  piece  or  parcel  of  ground,  situate, 
lying,  and  being  in  the  4th  Ward  of  the  City  of  New 
York,  in  the  interior  of  the  block,  being  in  the  rear 
of  the  building  now  fronting  on  James  street,  called 
Christ  Church,  and  partly  in  the  rear  of  an  alley  or 
passageway  leading  along  the  N.  side  of  the  church, 
bounded  as  follows  :  Beginning  at  a  point  distant  100 
feet  E.  from  James  street,  and  100  feet  N.  from  Madi¬ 
son  street,  thence  E.  parallel  with  Madison  street,  32 
feet  6  inches,  to  ground,  formerly  the  Jew’s  burying- 
ground,  now  belonging  to  party  of  2d  part,  thence 
N.  parallel  with  James  street,  26  feet  3  inches,  to 
ground  late  of  Robert  Brown,  thence  W.  parallel  with 
Madison  street  32  feet  6  inches,  and  thence  S.  par¬ 
allel  with  James  street  26  feet  3  inches,  to  place  of 
beginning. 

NUMBER  FORTY-FIVE. 

Thomas  Smith  and  Ann,  his  wife, ' 

of  Baltimore,  Maryland,  Date  of  Convey., 

Patrick  Smith  and  Mary,  his  wife,  Oct.  8th,  1850. 

of  Ohio,  and  Record,  in  lib. 

Peter  Smith  and  Ellen,  his  wife,  <  553,  page  369, 

of  Brooklyn,  Oct.  9th,  1850. 

to  Con.,  $5,500. 

John  Hughes. 

All  that  certain  house  and  lot  of  land,  situated  on 
west  side  of  Oliver  street,  in  the  4th  Ward  of  City  of 
New  York,  which  said  house  is  now  known  as  No.  23 

in  said  street,  and  which  said  lot  is  designated  as  1  Number . 


lot  No.  5,  on  a  map,  dated  January  13th,  1S32,  made 
by  Thomas  R.  Ludlum,  City  Surveyor,  the  said  lot 
being  on  file  in  Register’s  Office,  in  the  case  No.  57, 
the  said  lot  being  more  particularly  described  as  fol¬ 
lows  :  Beginning  in  the  said  west  side  of  Oliver 
street,  aforesaid,  at  l  point  at  the  middle  or  centre 
of  the  brick  part  of  the  party  wall,  which  divides  the 
said  house  from  the  adjoining  house,  known  as  No. 
25  in  said  street,  said  adjoining  house  being  on  the 
lot  designated  as  No.  6,  on  map  aforesaid  ;  running 
thence  north  from  said  point  along  west  side  of  Oli¬ 
ver  street,  21  feet  11  inches,  to  a  point  in  the  centre 
of  the  brick  part  of  the  party  wall  which  divides  the 
said  house  hereby  conveyed  from  adjoining  house 
known  as  No.  21  in  said  street,  said  house  being  on 
lot  designated  as  No.  4  on  said  map;  thence  west,  in 
a  straight  line  through  the  said  middle  of  the  said 
brick  part  of  the  said  party  wall,  and  the  south  side 
of  the  said  lot  designated  as  No.  4, 69  feet  and  1  inch, 
to  land  now  or  late  of  Samuel  Milbank  ;  thence  south 
along  the  said  last-mentioned  land,  21  feet  11  inches 
to  the  adjoining  lot  first  above  mentioned;  thence 
east  in  a  straight  line  along  north  line  of  said  lot, 
and  passing  through  the  middle  or  centre  of  said 
brick  part  of  party  wall  first  above  mentioned,  70 
feet  1  inch,  to  place  of  beginning. 

RECAPITULATION  IN  PART. 


Conveyances  to  John  Hughes.  Lots.  Place. 

Trustees  St.  John’s  R.  0.  Church 

s 

16th.  Ward 

Patrick  Doherty . 

1 

117th  street 

George  Wildes,  et.  als . 

2 

25th  street 

Ebbe  Marie . 

3 

6th  Ward 

D.  D.  Field,  et.  als . 

2 

16th  Ward 

Wm.  Patton,  D.  D.,  et  als . 

i 

2d  avenue 

B.  O’Connor,  fr.  Trust.  Christ  Ch. 

6 

James  street 

George  Cammann,  et.  als . 

1 

See  No.  9 

Andrew  Byrne . 

3 

11th  Ward 

Andrew  Byrne .  . 

1 

17th  Ward 

Z.  Kuntze . 

2 

16th  Ward 

Jas.  Foster . 

2 

llth  Ward 

Sarah  Remsen . 

1 

11th  Ward 

James  Rea . 

1 

14th  Ward 

G.  IV.  Hall . . . 

6 

14th  Ward 

Geo.  W.  Coster . 

1 

Avenue  B 

Mary  Ann  Gaffney,  et.  als . 

2 

Madison  Av 

Westervelt,  Sheriff . 

4  HTth  &  118th  sts 

R.  Klein . 

1 

llth  Ward 

Gregory  Dillon . 

5 

3d  Ward 

Trustees  Transfig.  Church . 

2 

Chambers  St 

Peter  Johnson,  et.  als . 

2 

18th  Ward 

Michaei  McKeon,  et.  als . 

2 

9th  Ward 

T.  E.  Davis,  et.  als . 

1 

12th  Ward 

Jas.  R.  Bayley . 

1 

Lease 

Thomas  Lennon . 

4 

19th  street 

H.  Grinnell . 

4 

14th  street 

G.  W.  Lawrence . 

6 

12th  Ward 

S.  Newby,  et.  als . 

4 

42d  street 

Thomas  Farrell . 

2 

13th  Ward 

Wm.  H.  De  Groot .  . 

2 

4th  Av 

D.  Cummings,  et.  als . 

1 

Mott  St 

Zion’s  Church . 

1 

6th  Ward 

Henry  Hayward,  et.  als . 

4 

ISth  Ward 

Walson  B.  Prentiss . 

1 

llth  Ward 

Charles  Toal,  et.  als . 

1 

4th  Ward 

Walter  Flynn,  et.  als . 

2 

9th  av&  25th  st 

Jas.  D.  Oliver,  et.  als . 

1 

19th  street 

Stephen  C.  Burdett . 

2 

18th  Ward 

Edward  C.  Richards . 

1 

3d  Avenue 

Thomas  Smith,  et.  als . 

1 

4th  Ward 

Abner  Benedict,  et.  als . 

6 

16th  Ward 

Michael  Curran,  jr . 

1 

sqrel2th  Ward 

Wm.  Wood,  et.  als . 

1 

4th  Ward 

101 


4 


54  CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


I  am  now,  Messrs.  Editors,  in  the  condition  of  one  who  has  been  an  expected  heir  to  a 
lar'm  fortune,  from  a  rich  citizen,  the  expectancy  being  founded  upon  conditions  on  my 
part,  and  promises  on  his.  The  conditions  imposed  upon  me  were  three  in  number  (both 
agreeing,  at  the  start,  that  the  fortune  should  go  to  found  a  Public  Library.) 

First. — that  I  would  prove  the  promised  donor  to  be  the  rich  citizen  I  had  previously 
declared  him  to  be. 

Secondly, — that  I  would  show  that  he  had  received  conveyances  of  Property  from 
Trustees.  And 

Finally, — that  I  would  prove  this  rich  citizen, — meaning  Archbishop  Hughes,  all  the 
time, — had  a  great  fortune  in  this  city. 

The  promise  was  that  if  I  proved  all  this,  the  city  of  our  common  residence  should 
have  a  public  edifice  to  be  called  “  The  Erastus  Brooks  Library.” 

My  records  to  day  and  before  give  good  evidence  that  I  have  offered  good  proof  as  to 
the  first,  second,  and  third  of  my  propositions.  The  only  doubt  there  can  be  is  as  to 
the  second,  and  I  therefore  put  the  Archbishop’s  statements  and  my  facts  side  by 
side : 


STATEMENT. 

<c  I  have  always  denied  that  I  ever  asked,  sought, 
received,  or  accepted  any  property  from  lay  trus¬ 
tees.  This  denial  I  repeat  to-day  with  increased 
emphasis. — [5th  letter  of  John  Hughes. 

“  I  have  never  received  or  accepted  any  transfer 
of  any  property  whatever  from  Trustees.” — [1st  let¬ 
ter  of  John  Hughes. 


FACT. 

“Trustees  of  St.  John’s  Roman  Catholic  Church 
to 

John  Hughes. 

Lease  999  years — consideration  one  cent  a  year — 
liber  451— page  249— July  20,  1844.” 

“  Trustees  of  the  Transfiguration  Church  to 
John  Hughes.”  Liber  591,  p.  26S. 

“  Bartholomew  O’Connor,”  Assignee  of  a  Board 
of  Trustees,  to  John  Hughes. 


And  now,  where  are  the  promises  of  the  Archbishop  ?  Where  is  the  Public  Library  ? 
What  is  to  become  of  the  People’s  interest  in  this  controversy,  and  which,  in  order 
that  I  might  win  an  Institution  for  them,  was  with  me  the  grand  motive,  for  prosecuting 
it  in  so  much  detail,  and  at  so  much  length. 

Encouraged  by  the  hope  of  seeing  this  Public  Library  established,  I  have  resorted,  first 
to  the  Books,  to  see  what  is  meant  by  Property,  and  finding  it  to  mean  “ownership,”  “pos¬ 
session  in  one’s  own  right,”  “that  to  which  a  person  has  a  legal  title,  whether  in  his 
possession  or  not,"  an  estate,  whether  in  lauds,  goods,  or  money,”  I  have  investi¬ 
gated  the  case  on  this  basis,  and  claim  the  reward. 

But  have  I  proved  my  case?  Fortunately  the  Depository  of  the  Records  of  Private 
Property — in  order  that  every  man  owning  an  estate  may  record  and  show  his  claim, — 
is  open  for  public  inspection.  I  have  resorted  to  the  office  of  the  Sworn  Register  of  the 
City,  and  among  the  Deeds  and  Conveyances,  I  find,  in  the  first  place,  a  large  number  of 
Conveyances  of  valuable  Property  to  John  Hughes,  his  heirs  and  assignees.  They 
include  all  kinds  of  Property,  ecclesiastical  and  secular.  So  far  all  is  well. 

I  look  further  and  find  a  lease  for  999  years,  consideration  one  cent  a  year,  from 
the  Trustees  of  St.  John’s  Roman  Catholic  Church.  This  lease  I  had  called  “  Property,” 
because  law  and  custom  so  described  it.  I  look  further,  and  I  find  a  conveyance  “  from 
the  Trustees  of  Transfiguration  Church  ”  to  the  same  John  Hughes,  and  if  I  could  be 
mistaken  about  the  fact,  that  a  999  years  lease,  at  one  cent  a  year,  is  Property,  I  am  no 
longer  in  error,  for  here  is  no  limitation  of  time.  Pursuing  my  investigation.  1  also 
find  a  conveyance  from  one  Bartholomew  O’Connor,  who  is  .acknowledged  to  be  the 
Assignee  of  a  “  Board  of  trustees,”  to  John  Hughes. 

And  I  might  enumerate  almost  without  limit.  But  cui  lotto  l  I  claim  that  the  Arch¬ 
bishop  shall  make  good  his  promise.  I  demand,  for  the  people  of  the  city,  the  Public 
Library.  If  the  Archbishop  will  not  trust  me,  I  renew  the  offer  to  leave  the  case  out  to 
Arbitration. 

I  propose  again  that  John  Hughes  shall  name  one  person,  I  a  second,  and  the  two 
selected,  shall  elect  a  third,  to  decide,  not  so  much  upon  this  question  of  veracity  between 
us, — for  that  is  a  matter  more  personal  than  public, — but  what  is  more  important,  whether 
I,  upon  the  record,  have  not  made  out  a  good  claim  to  that  Public  Library  promised,  upon 
certain  conditions  specified,  in  the  Archbishop’s  first  letter.  I  rely  upon  the  record  and 
the  fact.  I  know  no  distinction  between  John  Hughes,  and  f  John  Hughes,  Archbishop. 
The  record  is  of  Property,  which  he  claims  and  acknowledges  to  be  his,  or  which  is  in  his 
own  name,  and  that  of  his  heirs  and  assigns.  It  is  his  to  give  away,  will  away,  sell 
away,  and  dispose  of  as  he  pleases.  The  following  record  of  a  conveyance  from  him  to 
others,  will  show  that  he  is  as  prompt  to  sell  as  to  buy  : — 

DEED  MADE  THE  SIXTH  DAY  OF  JANUARY,  1865. 

JOHN  HUGHES 

TO 

HARLEM  RAILROAD  COMPANY. 

Consideration  of  $46,000. 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN.  55 


All  those  certain  lots,  pieces,  or  parcels  of  land,  situated,  lying,  and  being  in  the  ISth  Ward  of  the  city  of 
New  York,  on  the  easterly  side  of  Madison  avenue,  and  the  southerly  side  of  27th  street. 

Recorded  April  2d,  1853,  in  liber  616,  p.  640. 

If  this,  which  was  Church  Property,  was  “  the  property  of  God,”  how  could  John  Hughes 
sell  it  ?  If  it  was  not  his  own  property,  how  could  he  deed  it  away  in  fee  to  others  ? 
Would  not  the  Harlem  Railroad  Company  do  well  to  look  to  the  validity  of  a  title  re¬ 
ceived  from  a  man  who  sells  “  the  property  of  God,”  and  conveys  away  property  which 
he  declares  he  does  not  own  ? 

Yours  respectfully,  for  to-day, 

ERASTUS  BROOKS. 

New  York,  May  2d,  1855. 


A  CARD  TO  THE  PUBLIC. 

The  citizens  of  New  York  and  of  the  United  States  must  have  seen,  and  the  decent  por¬ 
tion  of  them  must  have  regretted,  the  progress  of  what  seems  to  be  a  controversy  between 
the  undersigned  and  Mr.  Erastus  Brooks,  Senator  of  the  State  of  New  York.  The  point 
involved  is  a  point  of  veracity,  in  which  Senator  Brooks  is  responsibly  charged  with  false¬ 
hood.  Although  the  case  would  warrant  it,  the  charge  has  not  been  extended  to  a  more 
degrading  term.  The  undersigned,  although  not  born  in  this  country,  is  far  from  being 
insensible  or  indifferent  to  the  necessity  of  maintaining  an  honorable  character  for  those 
who  represent  its  high  functions  in  the  Legislature,  the  Judiciary,  or  the  Executive.  And 
it  is  no  pleasure  to  him,  but  directly  the  reverse,  that  Senator  Brooks  has  placed  it  in  his 
power  and  made  it  an  obligation  for  him  to  prove  as  he  is  quite  prepared  to  do,  that  he, 
the  said  Senator  Brooks,  is  a  man  of  falsehood. 

All  this  shall  appear  in  less  than  ten  days  from  the  date  of  this  card. 

In  the  meantime  the  undersigned  feels  humbled  at  the  necessity  of  saying  or  writing 
anything  which  should  bring  infamy  or  disgrace  upon  his  country,  even  though  the  false¬ 
hoods  of  a  person  like  Senator  Brooks  should  be  the  immediate  occasion  of  it. 

The  physical  and  material  powers  of  the  United  States  are  becoming  more  and  more  re¬ 
cognized,  from  day  to  day,  by  the  civilized  nations  of  the  world.  Unfortunately,  the 
moral  attributes  of  our  progressive  greatness  are,  in  the  estimation  of  the  same  nations, 
sinking  from  day  to  day.  And  what  with  the  unfavorable  portion  that  is  perhaps  true  in 
this  unsettled  account,  and  the  prejudices  of  foreign  nations  who  are  unprepared  to 
believe  any  favorable  report  in  our  regard,  the  probability  is  that,  whether  we  like  it  or 
not,  our  course  in  the  esteem  of  the  civilized  world  has  at  this  moment  a  rather  down¬ 
ward  tendency. 

The  undersigned  is  but  a  cypher,  yet  he  feels  an  interest  in  the  reputation,  and  honor, 
and  prosperity,  and  progress  of  the  United  States,  which  makes  it  a  very  painful  duty  for 
him  to  charge  any  one  who  has  officiated  as  a  Senator  of  the  country  at  large,  or  of  a 
particular  State,  with  falsehood. 

But  under  present  circumstances  there  is  no  alternative.  He  charges  Senator  Brooks 
with  multiplied  and  deliberate  falsehoods,  and  he  only  solicits  from  the  right-mindedness 
and  patience  of  the  American  public  a  suspension  of  judgment  for  ten  days. 

In  the  meantime  it  would  be  unbecoming  and  perfectly  disgusting  to  the  eye  if  foreign 
journalists  and  his  countrymen  at  home,  as  well  as  humiliating  and  painful  to  his  own 
feelings,  to  see  and  read  in  the  American  journals  that  a  Roman  Catholic  Archbishop, 
who  claims  to  be  an  American,  and  who,  if  he  is  not  an  American,  has  no  right  or  claim 
on  any  other  country  in  the  world,  should  appear  an  accuser  of  an  American  Senator, 
whose  place  of  nativity  is  unquestioned, — charging  upon  the  same  Senator  falsehoods 
deliberately  and  repeatedly  uttered.  This  is  the  issue  to  which  Mr.  Erastus  Brooks  has 
urged  and  brought  me.  I  meet  it.  And  whilst  I  would  shield  as  much  as  possible  the 
dignity  of  character  which  is  implied  by  the  word  Senator,  I  hope  that  the  justice  of 
American  public  opinion  will  give  me  full  liberty  to  repel  and  expose  the  falsehoods  of  the 
man  called  Erastus  Brooks.  I  appeal  with  entire  confidence  to  the  patience  as  well  as 
justice  of  that  American  public  opinion — which  has  never  disappointed  me  in  matters  of 
truth  and  justice — for  a  suspense  of  ten  days  or  two  weeks. 

f  JOHN,  Archbishop  op  New  York. 

New  Yoke,  May  3d  1S55. 


56  CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


THE  ARCHBISHOP  HIMSELF  AGAIN. 

To  the  Editors  of  the  jXew  York  Courier  and  Enquirer : 

The  Archbishop  is  not  content  to  leave  the  “  wretched  and  vile  insect,”  “  Senator 
Brooks,”  where  he  thrust  him  in  his  letter  of  Wednesday  last — “outside  of  the  nearest 
open  sash  of  a  window.”  As  I  expected,  I  am  again  “  worthy  of  the  notice  ”  of  the 
Archbishop.  I  am  recalled  to  his  closet  to  be  blessed  again  with  such  amiable  epithets  as 
“  falsehood,”  “deliberate  falsehoods,”  repeated,  and  even  duplicated  six  times,  in  seven 
brief  paragraphs. 

All  this  has  been  said  so  many  times,  and  in  so  many  ways  and  forms  of  phrase,  that 
the  Archbishop  seems  to  be  apprehensive  that  the  public  will  forget  the  harsh  names  he 
has  called  me.  I  admit  that  he  has  called  me  all  these  things,  and  that  the  public  may 
not  forget  them,  I  intend  to  have  them  stereotyped.  I  admit  their  high,  official  origin — 
“  f  John,  Archbishop  of  New  York.”  I  have  recorded  their  frequency  by  quotation,  and 
by  the  republication  of  all  the  Archbishop's  epistles — but  I  have  not  been  so  impressed 
with  their  appropriateness,  coming  from  one  who  so  recently  formally  proclaimed  that  he 
was  “  invested  with  an  office  in  the  Church  of  God,  which  assimilated  to  that  of  his 
Divine  Master,  who  had  not  whereon  to  lay  his  head.” 

It  is  more  than  three  weeks  since  the  Archbishop  addressed  his  first  contemptuous  letter 
to  me — because  of  a  paragraph  in  my  speech  of  the  6th  of  March  last,  wherein  I  ventured 
to  “  suppose  ” — that  was  the  word,  sir — that  “  the  value  of  the  amount  of  property  held 
by  John  Hughes  in  this  city  was  worth  not  much  short  of  five  millions  of  dollars  ” — and 
wherein  I  stated,  as  proofs  in  part,  that  “  a  friend  of  mine  ”  had  copied  fifty-eight 
entries  of  as  many  distinct  parcels  of  property  held  in  this  name.”  I  was  careful  of  my 
statement,  and  of  my  authority,  who  in  this  case,  was  a  city  lawyer,  in  good  standing,  a 
member  of  a  Christian  Church,  and  a  gentleman.  It  was  his  copies  of  “  the  number, 
book,  and  page  ”  of  the  Register’s  office  that  I  exhibited,  as  stated  in  my  speech  to  the 
Senate,  along  with  a  huge  volume,  rare  with  American  readers,  but  familiar  to  you,  I 
suppose,  entitled  “  Corpus  Juris  Canonici  Academicum,”  and  a  book,  equally  rare  among 
Protestants,  known  as  the  “Pontificale  Romanum,”  from  both  of  which  I  may  have  some¬ 
thing  to  read  to  the  public  by  and  by. 

How  I  could  be  justly  charged  with  falsehood  for  a  supposition  of  fact  as  to  your 
wealth,  founded  upon  such  a  record,  passed  my  dull  comprehension.  If  I  should  suppose 
William  B.  Astor  worth  $10, 000,000,  and  his  property,  in  value,  should  turn  out  to  be 
even  greatly  less,  I  could  hardly  be  called,  by  a  Christian  or  a  gentleman,  a  liar.  If  I 
should  state  the  authority  and  reason  for  that  supposition,  an  intelligent  and  honest  pub¬ 
lic  or  person  would  hardly  see  the  justice  for  reiterating,  from  day  to  day,  and  from 
week  to  week — all  the  time  without  auy  proof  to  the  contrary  of  the  supposed  fact — the 
cry  of  “falsehood.” 

But,  as  three  weeks  have  not  afforded  time  enough  to  prove  that  “  Senator  Brooks  is  a 
man  of  falsehood,”  the  Archbishop  now,  in  “A  Card  to  the  Public,”  desires  “the  citizens 
of  New  York  and  of  the  United  States,”  to  suspend  their  judgment  for  “  ten  days  or  two 
weeks  longer”  By  all  means.  As  many  days  or  weeks  as  you  please.  Confined  to  my 
room  and  bed  for  some  days  past,  by  an  illness  contracted  in  Albany,  I  shall  be  better 
able  to  meet  you  then  than  now,  though  God  giving  me  strength,  I  am  ready  now,  to  meet 
you  step  by  step,  and  day  by  day,  as  long  as  you  please. 

I  have  two  or  three  letters  more  in  preparation  as  to  your  property,  and  practices  in 
regard  to  it,  in  and  out  of  the  city,  which,  as  convenience  may  suit  me,  I  may  or  may 
not  publish  in  advance  of  your  promised  concentrated  labor  of  “  ten  days  or  two  weeks  ” 
against  me. 

I  am,  for  to-day,  very  respectfully  yours, 

ERASTUS  BROOKS. 

New  Yoke,  May  4,  1S55. 


THE  “SINKING  CONDITION  OF  OUR  COUNTRY  ”— THE  PROPERTY  IN 
CALVARY  CEMETERY",  &c.,  &c. 

To  the  Editors  of  the  JX.  Y.  Courier  and  Enquirer  : 

The  following  are  the  texts  of  the  Archbishop's  “  Card  to  the  Public  :” 

“  Unfortunately  the  moral  attributes  of  our  progressive  greatness  are,  in  the  estimation  of  the  civilized 
nations  of  the  world,  sinking  from  day  to  day.”  *  *  *  “  Whether  we  like  it  or  not,  our  course  in 

the  esteem  of  the  civilized  world  has  at  this  moment  a  rather  downward  tendency. 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN. 


57 


“The  undersigned,  although  not  born  in  this  country,  is  far  from  being  insensible  or  indifferent  to  the 
necessity  of  maintaining  an  honorable  character  for  those  who  represent  its  high  functions  in  the  Legislature, 
the  Judiciary  or  the  Executive.” 

The  American  public  ought  to  appreciate  the  zeal  of  a  high  official  personage  not  born 
in  this  country,  but  who  has  grown  rich  and  powerful  in  it,  who  thus  undertakes  to  de¬ 
grade  it  in  the  eyes  of  “  the  civilized  world."  If  the  United  States  is  “  sinking  from  day  to 
day,”  and  if  our  government  has  “  that  downward  tendency  ”  so  much  deplored,  the  best 
thing  the  Archbishop  can  do  is  to  shake  the  American  dust  from  his  feet  and  leave  this 
land  for  the  country  where  he  was  born,  and  which  perhaps  can  better  appreciate  him  than 
America. 

“  True  Patriots  they,  who  be  it  understood, 

Leave  their  country,  for  their  country’s  good.” 

It  is  you,  “  f  John,  Archbishop  of  the  Province  of  New  York,”  who  have  recently  given 
us  poor,  “sinking,”  “downward-tending”  Americans  some  dim  idea  of  Imperial  Rome 
which  you  have  pictured  as  so  “  splendid  that  none  ought  to  attempt  to  describe  it.”  The 
greatest  ruin  there  I  know  is  the  ruin  of  the  national  character.  But  I  know,  also,  that  it 
is  very  beautiful,  and  that  you  have  passed  a  delightful  winter  there,  while  so  many 
thousands  of  your  flock  have  been  fed  or  clothed,  or  fed  and  clothed,  from  the  charity  of 
the  nation  at  large,  whose  good  name  you  abuse,  and  the  calumnies  upon  which  you 
reiterate  in  your  Card  to  the  Public.  With  almost  equal  assumption  in  your  controversy 
in  regard  to  the  Bible  in  our  Common  Schools  you  said  as  Bishop  Hughes,  “We  come 
here  denied  of  our  rights."  Then  as  now  you  held  your  commission  from  Rome, — from 
the  Crowned  Ruler  of  the  States  of  the  Church,  and  not  from  the  country  which,  if  it  is 
in  any  sense  going  “  morally  downward,”  has  sunk  by  the  influence  and  power  of  such 
foreign-born  men  as  yourself  and  your  coadjutors.  If  this  great  city  of  the  new  world,  or 
this  free  land  of  ours,  has  not  ample  room  and  verge  enough  for  you,  do  not  abuse  us  any 
more,  but  take  your  leave  peaceably  and  in  good  temper.  The  Vatican  is  the  largest 
palace  in  Europe,  and  in  the  4,420  halls  and  galleries,  filled  with  ancient  and  modern  art, 
there  must  be  a  welcome  for  an  Archbishop  flying  from  this  sinking  land.  The  Church  of 
St.  Peter  tells  its  own  history,  in  the  fact  that  it  cost  .3160,000,000,  and  was  111  years  in 
building.  Your  mind  must  be  dwelling  upon  St.  John’s  of  Lateran,  where  Cardinals  who 
would  be  Popes,  and  Bishops  who  would  be  Cardinals,  witness  the  regal  ceremonies  of  the 
Pontiff  s  coronation.  The  score  and  a  half  of  your  churches  here,  in  a  city  of  more  than 
three  times  the  population  of  Rome,  are  counted  there  by  hundreds,  with  monasteries, 
gardens,  squares  and  palaces,  almost  without  number.  It  must  have  been  in  anticipation 
of  enjoying  such  a  residence,  or  possessing  such  dominion  as  this,  that  you  have  ventured 
to  speak  of  our  sinking  character  and  of  our  moral  degeneracy. 

But  all  this  has  more  reference  to  yourself  than  it  has  been  the  object  of  my  letters  to 
occupy  space  with.  When  you  speak  of  me,  whether  as  editor,  man,  senator  or  otherwise, 
I  smile  at  your  anger.  Your  epithets,  frequent  and  foul  as  they  are,  have  left  neither 
remembrance  nor  sting,  beyond  the  regret  that  the  Archbishop  of  an  entire  diocese,  and 
the  head  of  scores  of  Churches, — filled,  many  of  them,  I  doubt  not,  with  devout  worship¬ 
pers, — should  have  made  use  of  them.  When,  however,  you  publish  at  home  the  evil 
opinions  of  “  the  civilized  world  ”  towards  the  United  States,  and  send  them  officially  as 
cards  to  the  public,  I  feel  that  your  have  grown  proud  and  arrogant  in  the  country  where 
you  have  been  elevated  to  the  highest  position  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  of  America. 
Learn  to  speak  well  of  the  bridge  that  has  given  you  a  safe  passage. 

If,  however,  it  be  true  that  we  have  been  arrested  as  a  nation  in  “  the  moral  attributes 
of  our  progressive  greatness,”  I  think  the  cause  is  to  be  found  in  the  elevation  of  men  who 
deem  it  not  undignified  to  use  the  highest  church  office  and  its  symbol  of  humility  for  the 
purposes  which  have  characterized  your  correspondence.  When  an  Archbishop  conde¬ 
scends  to  charge  me  with  numberless  falsehoods,  in  numberless  times  and  ways,  and  adds 
to  such  epithets,  others  equally  vulgar  and  personal,  there  is  indeed  sad  evidence  of  moral 
degradation. 

But  it  is  for  deeds  not  words,  for  acts  more  than  language  that  you  are  addressed  in  a 
correspondence  begun  by  yourself. 

In  Spain  and  Italy,  as  in  most  other  countries  where  the  supremacy  of  the  Papal  See  is 
recognized,  they  refuse  the  customary  rites  of  burial  to  the  dead,  if  the  deceased  are. 
Protestants.  There  is  not  only  a  denial  of  all  religious  ceremonies  over  the  bodies  of 
Protestants  when  dead,  but  a  cruel  interdiction  of  religious  services  even  for  the  sick  and 
dying,  as  well  as  for  those  who  are  living  and  in  health.  In  Madrid,  the  other  day,  a 
Protestant  minister,  with  a  small,  peaceably  assembled  congregation,  was  brutally  out¬ 
raged  for  daring  to  engage  in  divine  worship.  In  some  parts  of  Italy  out  of  reach  and 
view  of  what  is  called  consecrated  ground,  the  dead,  rather  by  stealth  than  by  right,  are 
allowed  to  be  entombed,  but  rarely  with  any  of  those  attentions  which  are  due  to  the 


58  CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


memory  of  the  dead,  and  which  afford  so  much  consolation  and  satisfaction  to  the  living. 
The  recent  treatment  of  the  Madai  family  in  Italy  illustrates  the  feeling  of  European 
Catholics  towards  Protestants  there,  and  the  following  extract  shows  the  spirit  of  one  of 
their  leading  presses  here  towards  Protestanism  throughout  the  civilized  world  : 

“  For  our  own  part,  we  take  this  opportunity  to  explain  our  hearty  delight  at  the  suppression  of  the 
Protestant  chapel  in  Rome,  This  may  be  thought  intolerant,  but  when,  we  ask,  did  we  ever  profess  to  be 
tolerant  of  Protestanism,  or  to  favor  the  question  that  Protestantism  ought  to  be  tolerated  ?  On  the  contrary 
we  hate  Protestanism — we  detest  it  with  our  whole  heart  and  soul,  and  we  pray  our  aversion  to  it  may  never 
decrease.” — [Pittsburgh  Catholic  Visitor,  1S48. 

In  this  country  the  Roman  Catholics  are  protected  in  their  Archbishops  and  Bishops, 
their  Priests  and  Convents,  their  Churches  and  Property,  and  in  every  form  and  ceremony 
of  their  faith.  They  are  allowed  their  own  burial  places,  permitted  to  consecrate  them, 
and  to  regard  all  other  places  of  interment  as  unsanctified  or  accursed.  But  in  this  city  they 
have  privileges  granted  to  no  other  denomination.  Of  this  I  complain,  as  I  did  in  a 
recent  letter,  of  the  gift  to  them,  without  any  consideration  whatever,  of  the  valuable  City 
Property  (thirty-two-lots  of  ground)  between  Fifty  and  Fifty-first  streets,  while  a  Pro¬ 
testant  Benevolent  Association  were  denied  their  prayer  of  relief,  and  charged  by  the  same 
City  Government  $28,000  for  a  much  smaller  tract  of  land  in  the  immediate  neighborhood. 

PARTICULARS  AS  TO  CALVARY  CEMETERY. 

CONTROLLED  BT  ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 

This  Cemetry  ground  covers  eighty  acres,  cost  $18,000,  and  is  situated  in  Newtown, 
Queen’s  County,  Long  Island.  The  Archbishop  who  regulates  not  only  the  religious  affairs 
of  men  before  they  die,  but  the  price  and  place  of  burial  when  dead,  in  the  form  of  grave 
fees,  tomb-stone  fees,  fees  for  re-opening  graves,  Ac.,  &c.,  has  established  the  following 
rates : — 

Price  of  graves  3  feet  wide  and  7  long,  --------  $T 

Right  to  erect  a  tomb-stone,  -  ...  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  $io 

Cost  by  acre,  at  $13,000,  -------  $225 

Cost  as  sold  per  order  John  Hughes,  at  $14  a  grave,  $30,000 ! 

Cost  of  whole  at  this  rate,  ---------  $2,400,000 ! ! 

Deduct  50  per  cent,  for  gifts,  excess,  &c.,  -  $1,200,000!!' 

The  people  of  New  York  will  see  the  justice  of  the  complaint  that  the  Dead,  when  of 
the  poorer  class,  and  of  those  unable  to  pay  anything  by  themselves  or  by  friends,  are 
buried  like  dogs  in  trenches,  four  or  six  bodies  one  upon  another.  Those  who  have  seen 
the  horrible  spectacles  of  burying  the  dead  at  Naples,  or  at  the  Campos  Santos,  near 
Havana,  can  realize  the  cruel  inhumanity  of  such  interments  here.  The  expenses  of  new 
ground  and  tomb  stones,  even  among  a  class  with  means  to  secure  a  respectable  burial, 
often  lead  to  the  interment  of  more  than  one  body  in  one  grave. 

The  Germans,  in  1840,  bought  a  piece  of  land  in  the  same  town  of  Newtown,  as  a  Burial 
Place  for  their  own  people,  in  order  to  escape  the  impositions  practised  by  the  Archbishop 
in  the  Calvary  Cemetery.  They  began  to  bury  their  dead  there,  feeling  that  they  had 
the  right  even  as  Catholics  to  commit  their  friends  to  the  earth  which  they  had  purchased 
with  their  money,  and  consecrated  in  their  hearts.  But  the  Archbishop  was  resolved  to 
prove  himself  both -their  master  in  temporal  as  well  as  spiritual  matters.  He  refused  to 
consecrate  the  ground  thus  bought,  and  the  Germans  were  compelled  to  abandon  it  as  a 
place  of  rest  for  their  dead.  Hence,  the  value  of  this  consecrated  property,  at  Calvary, 
nominally  under  the  title  or  name  of  “  The  Trustees  of  St.  Patrick’s  Cathedral,”  but  in 
reality,  the  Archbishop’s  own  property.  Hence,  too,  the  reason  for  crowding  the  poor  in 
trenches,  four  and  six  deep,  and  which  led  to  the  complaint  to  the  Board  of  Health,  to  a 
petition  from  the  people  to  the  Legislature  for  the  enactment  of  a  law  to  restrain  such 
modes  of  interment.  I  now  wish  to  know  of  the  Archbishop,  if,  in  his  own  case,  the 
ordinances  of  the  corporation  have  been  complied  with,  in  regarjj  to  the  Burial  of  the 
Dead.  I  wish  to  know  if  the  City  Inspector  has  “  granted  permits  for  the  removal  of  the 
bodies  of  deceased  persons  from  the  city,”  to  the  Archbishop’s  burial  ground,  as  is 
required  from  all  sextons  and  churches.  I  wish  to  know  if  the  9th  aud  11th  sections  of 
the  City  Ordinance,  of  April  23d,  1839  (amended  June  2d.  1842),  have  been  complied 
with  in  regard  to  Calvary  Cemetery,  and  whether  dead  bodies  have  not  been  conveyed 
out  of  the  city  11  without  having  first  received  a  certificate,  stating  the  name,  apparent 
age,  birth-place,  date  and  place  of  death,  and  the  disease  he  or  she  shall  have  died  of, 
signed  by  the  attending  physician,  or  in  case  no  physician  shall  have  attended  such 
deceased  person,  then  by  some  of  the  family  of  the  deceased  ;  or,  in  case  of  au  inquest  hav¬ 
ing  been  held,  by  the  Coroner,  which  certificate  shall  be  deposited  with  the  return  in  the 
office  of  the  City  Inspector.” 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN.  59 


Has  the  Archbishop  anil  his  responsible  subordinates  conformed  to  this  ordinance?  Are 
they  exempted  from  paying  the  $250  imposed  upon  others  for  each  and  every  violation  of 
this  just  local  law?  In  one  Sabbath  last  summer,  I  am  told,  there  were  236  Roman 
Catholic  funerals  from  this  city.  The  dead  were  iuterred  on  Long  Island,  in  the  Arch¬ 
bishop’s  Cemetery,  and  the  receipts  for  the  benefit  of  the  owner  of  this  property  were 
large  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  funerals.  I  have  been  told,  too,  and  from  those  who 
ought  to  know,  that  the  sums  received  have  been,  upon  some  such  occasions,  as  the  one  I 
have  named,  two  or  three  thousand  dollars  a  day. 

One-third  of  all  the  persons  who  dee  in  the  city  are  buried  in  the  Arch¬ 
bishop’s  Cemetery.  It  is  unlawful  and  against  the  discipline  of  the  Archbishop  to  bury 
anywhere  else.  About  eight  thousand  bodies  were  buried  from  this  city  in  this 
cemetery  last  year.  During  the  month  of  August,  1854,  there  were  twenty-two 
hundred  interments,  of  which  I  have  a  record  before  me.  From  January  6th,  to  April 
28th,  of  the  present  year — sixteen  weeks — there  were  2,643,  varying  from  144  to  188  each 
week. 

To  return  to  the  City  Ordinances  for  a  moment,  I  wish  to  know  if  the  ordinance  I  have 
quoted,  has  not  been  set  aside,  even  when  some  of  its  provisions  have  been  compulsory, 
through  neglect,  evasion,  or  otherwise,  on  the  part  of  those  conducting  the  funerals  to 
Calvary  Cemetery?  Under  the  ordinance  of  1839,  every  Sexton  in  this  city  has  to  apply 
to  the  City  Inspector  for  burial  permits,  and  all  this  being  merely  inconvenient  for  the 
extensive  business  of  the  Archbishop,  an  amendment  or  exemption  from  the  law  was 
passed  August  3,  1848,  as  follows  : — 

“  Amendment  to  ordinance  entitled,  ‘  Of  the  Interment  of  the  Dead,’  passed  April  23,  1839,  by  adding — 

“  Section  12.  ‘  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  City  Inspector  to  grant  a  general  permit  to  the  Sexton  of 
Saint  Patrick’s  Cathedral,  for  the  Removal  of  Dead  Bodies  to  be  interred  in  the  new  Roman 
Catholic  Cemetery,  in  Newtown,  Long  Island,  provided  that  the  said  Sexton  comply  with  the  ninth  section 
of  this  chapter,  and  all  captains,  agents,  or  other  persons  attached  to  any  steamboat,  ferry-boat,  sailing  or 
other  vessel,  or  to  any  stage,  railroad,  or  other  conveyance,  shall  convey  said  dead  bodies  to  be  interred 
“  upon  the  Certificate  of  the  said  Sexton.”  ’  ” 

Here  is  a  special  city  ordinance,  granting  a  general  permit,  in  favor  of  Archbishop 
Hughes  and  his  cemetry,  the  earth  of  which  he  disposes  of  at  the  enormous  profit  I  have 
named.  When  the  Archbishop  buys  land,  houses  and  other  Property,  it  is  made  over  to 
him,  his  heirs  and  assignees  for  all  time,  but  when  he  disposes  of  Property  in  his  cemetry, 
he  only  gives  an  acknowledgement  of  so  much  money  received.  He  demands  a  deed  in 
the  one  case,  and  places  it  upon  record,  according  to  law.  He  gives  a  mere  receipt  in 
the  other  case,  and  the  man  who  possesses  it  feels  no  certain  assurance,  that  what  he  has 
paid  for  is  his  own.  The  loss  of  a  receipt  is  a  loss  of  title.  New  York  Roman  Catholics  have 
complained  of  this  to  me,  both  in  Albany  ai.d  at  home,  and  of  the  ruling  of  the  Archbishop 
in  this  matter  as  a  most  selfish  and  unjustifiable  proceeding.  A  receipt  for  money  paid  for 
land  may  be  lost,  whereas  a  deed  and  conveyance  can  be  placed  beyond  all  such  accidents. 
Some  of  the  Calvary  lots,  16  by  16,  are  sold  for  $200,  and  8  by  8,  for  $150,  and  in  pro¬ 
portion  for  smaller  lots. 

But  once  more,  while  upon  this  ordinance,  let  me  ask, — why  should  Roman  Catholics  or 
the  Archbishop’s  Sexton  be  exempted  from  labors  imposed  upon  other  Sects  and  Sextons. 
If  others  are  required  to  secure  “  Permits  ”  of  burial  from  the  City  Inspector,  why 
should  not  he  and  they.  The  City  Ordinance  was  passed  not  only  to  secure  order  and 
regularity  in  regard  to  the  burial  of  the  dead,  but  to  enable  the  City  Coroners  and  others 
to  investigate  the  causes  of  death.  One  may  die  the  victim  of  a  riot,  or  foul  play,  or  be 
put  out  of  the  way  by  some  summary  means  to  gratify  the  vengeance  or  passion  of  an 
enemy.  All  that  is  necessary  is  for  the  Sexton  to  secure  a  nurse’s  or  physician’s  certificate 
of  death,  and  to  return  a  general  record  of  deaths  to  the  City  Inspector  at  the  end  of  a 
week.  The  thousands  who  die  in  this  City,  and  who  are  interred  at  Calvary  Cemetry,  are 
placed  beyond  the  reach  of  Coroners,  and  in  a  measure  beyond  the  reach  of  our  entire 
City  authorities.  The  partial  exemption  is  unjust  to  others,  unsafe  in  itself,  and  ought 
to  be  removed  by  the  repeal  of  the  Act  of  1848. 

The  wrongs  perpetrated  by  the  Archbishop  in  regard  to  the  Calvary  Cemetry  Property, 
and  which  so  many  Roman  Catholics  complain  of,  those  who  believe  in  the  spiritual  power 
of  the  Archbishop,  but  not  in  his  temporal  power,  ought  to  reform,  as  friends  of  the  dead 
and  of  justice  between  man  and  man. 

It  ought  to  shock  the  moral  sense  of  every  Roman  Catholic, — as  it  does  that  of 
almost  every  other  man  in  the  community, — to  see  an  Archbishop  engaged,  through 
his  subordinates,  and  for  his  own  benefit,  in  the  business  of  selling  graves  and  lots  in  a 
grave-yard, — receiving  all  prices,  from  two  hundred  dollars  down,  according  to  the 
place  used  or  the  size  of  the  lot. 

Is  it  not  bad  enough  to  rob  the  poor  of  their  tithes  and  offerings  when  alive,  without 
following  them,  through  their  friends,  to  the  very  grave  when  dead  ? 


CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


60 


It  is  impossible  to  name  the  sums  received  per  annum  by  the  Archbishop  for  the 
burials  at  Calvary  Cemetry.  The  lowest  sum  I  have  heard  is  an  average  of  five  dollars 
for  each  interment,  and  eight  thousand  interments,  at  five  dollars  each,  amounts  to  forty 
thousand  dollars  a  year !  I  suppose  it  to  be  more.  Many  of  the  very  poor  are  buried 
at  small  cost,  or  without  cost,  and  buried  like  dogs  in  pits,  as  at  Naples  and  Havana,  but 
then  the  rich  pay  for  the  luxury  of  riches,  at  the  rate  of  $200,  to  possess  not  a  deed  of 
the  land  they  pay  for,  but  merely  for  holding  a  receipt  of  the  money  they  paid. 

As  the  Archbishop  compels  all  Roman  Catholics  of  the  city  to  be  buried  in  a  prescribed 
place — refusing  peremptorily  to  consecrate  any  other — so,  like  a  true  monopolist,  as  he  is, 
he  commands  his  own  price  and  terms  for  lots,  land  fees,  headstone  fees,  &c.,  Ac. 

That  I  may  do  him  and  his  no  wrong  in  this  matter.  I  furnish  the  following  letter  in  this 
connection,  sent  to  me  by  a  responsible  person,  in  business  in  the  city,  who  is  a  Roman 
Catholic,  and  telling  its  own  story. 


LETTER  TO  MR.  BROOKS. 


“I  have  for  some  time  been  at  a  loss  to  discover  wherein  lies  the  blame  of  much  of  the  evil  incident  to  our 
lives  as  Roman  Catholics — whether  it  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  Bishop  or  to  the  Priests.  Inquiry  of  my  friends 
has  not  enlightened  me,  but  from  facts  such  as  follow,  the  public,  as  well  as  myself,  can  judge. 

“  Recently,  it  was  my  misfortune  to  lose  my  father,  and,  by  request  of  my  surviving  parent,  I  was  induced 
to  call  upon  the  ‘  Canal  Street  Jesuits,*  whom  I  politely  invited  to  perform  the  last  act  of  earthly  respect  over 
the  body  of  the  dear  deceased,  in  accordance  with  the  ritual  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  In  making  appli¬ 
cation,  I  was  first  asked  :  ‘  Where  are  you  going  to  bury  your  father?’  I  replied, 1  In  the  family  lot  in  Green¬ 
wood,  where  lie  other  members  of  the  family.’  The  priests  then  positively  refused,  saying  that  it  was 
contrary  to  their  rules,  and  that  +  John  Hughes  had  forbidden  them  to  go  to  any  funeral  except  where  the 
body  should  be  buried  in  the  Catholic  Cemetery,  in  Williamsburg.  I  then  told  them  that  I  would  call  upon 
the  minister  of  another  creed,  to  which  I  got  answer  that,  if  I  did  so,  the  whole  population  of  New  York  would 
blame  my  family  for  ever.  They  also  advised  me  to  bury  my  father  secretly.  Knowing  that  the  priests  had 
no  power  to  disgrace  me  or  mine,  I  went  to  a  Protestant  minister,  (Mr.  Verien,  of  Franklin  street),  since  which 
time,  the  Canal  street  gentlemen  have  been  at  much  pains  relative  to  the  character  of  my  family,  and  have 
gone  so  far  as  to  refuse  to  offer  up  ‘  mass  for  the  dead,’  as  is  customary,  saying  that  they  ‘  pray  alone  for  those 
buried  at  the  Williamsburg  Catholic  Cemetery.’  Their  anger  has  even  descended  to  my  niece,  a  girl  fifteen 
years  of  age,  who,  according  to  custom  with  R.  C.’s,  went  to  communion  at  Easter.  At  her  confession  to  the 
Jesuit,  he  recognizing  her,  and,  though  having  naught  against  the  child  to  prevent  her  from  communing, 
asked  her  if  she  had  eaten  meat  during  Lent.  The  girl,  in  her  innocence,  told  the  truth,  saying  :  ‘Yes,  father ;’ 

upon  which  he  told  her  to  1  Go  away;  you  will  go  to  h- - with  all  your  family;  and  I  pity  you,  my  poor  child, 

to  belong  to  the  family  of  M - S - .’ 

“  The  above  statement  of  facts  I  send  you,  that  the  public  may  judge  of  some  of  the  doings  of  John  Hughes, 
relative  to  the  dead,  for  the  benefit  of  his  temporalities.  **  **.” 


The  Archbishop  is  also  the  controling  power  of  the  Roman  Catholic  burial  place  in  11th 
street,  where  large  fees  are  had  for  interment. 

On  123d  and  124th  streets,  there  is  a  burial  ground  covering  eight  lots,  belonging  to 
the  Church  of  St.  John  the  Baptist,  built  on  30th  street.  The  owners  were  Gprmans.  They 
built  a  church  and  selected  a  suitable  place  for  the  burial  of  their  dead.  For  some  time, 
without  restraint  from  the  Archbishop  or  others,  they  were  permitted  to  inter  the  members 
of  their  congregation  in  these  grounds,  which  were  sacred  both  to  the  memory  of  the 
dead  and  to  their  friends.  The  Archbishop  interposed,  aud  prohibited  the  use  of  the 
grounds  for  this  purpose.  The  congregation,  in  a  spirit  of  German  independence,  con¬ 
tinued  to  bury  their  dead  there,  nothwithstanding  the  prohibition  of  the  Archbishop.  It 
was  then  announced  by  authority  from  the  pulpit,  that  burial  services  would  not  be 
permitted  there  any  longer.  Still  the  congregation  persisted  in  exercising  their  rights  as 
men,  and  in  discharging  their  duty  to  the  dead.  For  a  time  the  dead  were  buried  without 
the  usual  funeral  cei^monies  or  services.  The  Archbishop  in  the  exercise  of  his  high¬ 
handed  power,  then  took  the  Priest  from  the  congregation,  and,  as  a  consequence,  the 
Church  had  to  be  closed,  and  was  closed  for  some  time.  Submission  to  the  Archbishop,  or 
the  denial  of  a  Pastor,  was  the  only  alternative,  and  tyranny  in  the  end  prevailed  over 
right,  but  not  without  protests  and  heartburnings  which  are  still  felt  as  an  exercise  of 
Priestly  power  against  general  justice. 

It  may  be  said,  perhaps,  of  Calvary  Cemetery,  that  as  it  is  not  within  the  limits  of  New 
York  City,  it  is  not  Property  owned  by  the  Archbishop  in  the  city.  But  I  am  dealing 
with  a  Principle  now,  and  not  a  quibble,  nor  a  technicality.  It  is  unworthy  of  an  Arch¬ 
bishop  to  attempt  to  escape  after  the  manner  of  his  previous  epistles.  The  dead  referred 
to  died  in  the  city.  The  friends  of  the  dead  live  in  the  city.  The  money  for  the  Arch¬ 
bishop’s  land  is  supplied  in  the  city,  where  also  the  Archbishop  lives,  and  where  he 
receives  the  money  for  the  land  sold  by  his  agent,  and  at  his  bidding.  What  the  value 
of  this  land  is,  from  which  so  many  thousands  of  dollars  are  annually  received,  the 
Archbishop  cau  inform  the  public  by  opening  his  books  for  their  inspection.  It  is  fair, 
however,  to  judge  the  value  from  the  monopoly  and  profit. 

Very  respectfully,  for  to-day. 

ERASTUS  BROOKS. 

Nzw  York,  May  7th,  1S55. 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN.  Cl 


PROPERTY  IN  BROOKLYN.— THE  CONVEYANCES  TO  AND  FROM 

JOHN  HUGHES. 


To  the  Editors  of  the  Courier  and  Enquirer  : 

Under  date  of  April  21, 1  find  a  letter  to  me  signed  “  f  John,  Archbishop  of  New  York,” 
which  contains  this  statement : 

“  I  may  tell  him  (Mr.  Brooks)  that  all  church  property  in  the  dioceses  of  Brooklyn,  Albany ,  ancl  Buffalo , 

BELONG  TO  THE  CATHOLIC  PEOPLE  OF  EACH.” 


Now,  so  far  as  Brooklyn  is  concerned,  this  statement  is  not  correct,  and  the  Archbishop 
ought  to  have  known  it.  Every  man  of  sound  mind  must  certainly  know  the  truth  or 
falsity  of  every  statement,  which  he  makes  upon  his  own  responsibility.  Therefore,  every 
person  who  misstates  or  perverts  a  known  truth,  especially  when  charging  another  with 
falsehood,  does  that  which  the  Archbishop  has  done  in  his  controversy  with  me. . 

A  cursory  examination  of  the  records  in  the  Register’s  office  in  King’s  County,  shows 
that  the  following  conveyances  have  been  made  to  John  Hughes: 


No.  1. 

Nicholas  Luauer  and  Sarah  L.,  his  wife,  to  Right  Rev. 
John  Hughes  of  the  city  of  New  York.  Deed 
dated  1st  Oct.,  1851.  Recorded  in  liber  275,  page 
3.  Consideration,  $2,500. 

Conveys  five  lots  of  ground  on  the  northerly  side 
of  Luquer  street,  6th  Ward,  Brooklyn. 

No.  2. 

Charles  Constantine  Pise,  pastor  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  of  St.  Charles  Borromeo,  to  the 
Most  Reverend  John  Hughes,  Catholic  Archbishop 
of  New  York.  Deed  dated  6th  March,  1852.  Re¬ 
corded  liber  274,  page  210.  Consideration,  $1. 

Conveys  brick  dwelling  and  lot  of  ground  south¬ 
easterly  corner  of  Sidney  place  and  Livingston 
street.  Lot  27  by  105  feet. 

No.  3. 

Francis  Weeks  and  Ellen  J.,  his  wife,  to  Most  Rev. 
John  Hughes,  Archbishop  of  New  York.  Deed 
dated  20th  June,  1851.  Recorded  liber  250,  page 
88.  Consideration,  $2,800. 

Conveys  eight  lots  of  ground,  9th  Ward,  Brooklyn? 
known  as  Nos.  13S,  139,140,141,142,143,  144  and 
145,  on  map  of  land  formerly  belonging  to  Cornelius 
Yan  Cleef. 

No.  4. 

William  T.  Dugan  and  Eliza,  his  wife,  to  Most  Rev. 
John  Hughes,  Archbishop  of  New  York.  Deed 
dated  20th  of  June,  1851.  Rec.  lib.  250,  page  91. 
Consideration,  $2,800. 

Conveys  eight  lots,  9th  Ward,  known  as  Nos.  146, 
147,  148,  149,  150, 151, 152  and  153,  on  same  map. 

No.  5. 

Isaac  Allen  and  Charity,  his  wife,  to  Most  Rev.  John 
Hughes,  Archbishop  of  New  York.  Deed  dated 
May  16th,  1851.  Rec.  lib.  246,  page  339.  Consid¬ 
eration,  $2,500. 

Conveys  lot  40  feet  by  100  feet,  on  the  east  side  of 
Jay  street,  4th  Ward.  [A  large  brick  building,  called 
“  St.  James’  School,”  has  recently  been  erected  on 
this  lot.] 

No.  6. 

Smith  W.  Anderson  and  wife,  and  Aaron  Clark,  to 
the  Most  Rev.  John  Hughes,  Archbishop  of  New 
York.  Deed  dated  Oct.  12th,  1S50.  Rec.  lib.  228, 
page  44.  Consideration,  $40. 

Conveys  a  small  strip  of  land  in  8th  Ward. 

No.  7. 

Sylvester  Malone  (Rev.)  to  John  Hughes,  of  New 
York.  Deed  dated  Sept.  8th,  1S50.  Rec.  lib.  226, 
page  47S.  Consideration,  $1. 


Conveys  lot,  with  three  story  brick  dwellingthere- 
on,  southerly  side  of  South  Third  street,  between 
Second  and  Third  streets.  Lot  25  feet  by  75  feet. 

No.  8. 

Rev.  Edward  Briardy,  to  the  Most  Rev.  John  Hughes, 
Bishop  of  New  York.  Deed  dated  June  5th,  1S50. 
Rec.  lib.  220,  page  SI.  Consideration,  $1. 

Conveys  five  lots  of  ground  in  the  town  of  New 
Utrecht,  and  on  which  a  church  has  been  erected. 

No.  9. 

Same  to  Same.  Deed  dated  5th  June,  1850.  Rec. 
lib.  220,  page  84.  Consideration,  $1. 

Conveys  section  of  land  with  church,  situate  in 
Flatbush. 

Dan.  H.  Arnold  and  wife,  and  others,  to  the  Right 
Rev.  John  Hughes,  of  New  York.  Deed  dated  1st 
Dec.,  1849.  Rec.  lib.  209,  page  58.  Consideration, 
$10,000. 

Conveys  three  lots  and  church,  easterly  side  of 
Sidney  Place,  between  State  and  Livingston. 

No.  10. 

James  Duffy  and  wife,  to  the  Right  Rev.  John  Hughes, 
Bishop  of  New  York.  Deed  recorded  lib.  200, 
page  464.  Consideration,  $2,700. 

Conveys  a  piece  of  land  at  Flatbush,  containing 
17  acres,  2  rods,  and  5  perches  of  land. 

No.  11. 

Rev.  Charles  Smith,  to  John  Hughes,  the  Right  Rev. 
Bishop  of  New  York.  Deed  dated  Nov.  184S.  Rec. 
lib.  194,  page  149.  Consideration,  $1. 

Conveys  lot  westerly  side  of  Jay  street— No.  367 
Lands  Map. 

No.  12. 

Same  to  same.  Deed  dated  Nov.,  1848.  Rec.  lib. 
194,  page  150.  Consideration,  $1,500. 

Conveys  lot  westerly  side  of  Jay  street — No.  369 
Lands  Map. 

[Mr.  Smith  was  formerly  pastor  of  St.  James’ 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  erected  a  beautiful 
Gothic  School  House  on  the  above  lots.] 

No.  13. 

George  Hall  and  wife,  to  John  Hughes.  Deed  dated 
8th  July,  1848.  Rec.  lib.  181,  page  339.  Consid¬ 
eration,  $675. 

Conveys  six  lots  in  8th  Ward. 

No.  14. 

James  Feeny  and  wife  to  John  Hughes.  Deed  dated 
25th  July,  1846.  Rec.  lib.  151,  page  45.  Consid¬ 
eration,  $700. 

Conveys  lot  in  9th  Ward. 


[  C2  CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


Since  the  appointment  of  John  Loughlin  to  the  diocese  of  Brooklyn  (so  called),  this 
John  Hughes  has  conveyed  the  property  named  to  him  ;  hut  that  does  not  alter  the  mis¬ 
statement  contained  in  the  paragraph  above  quoted  ;  and  the  power  to  convey,  no  doubt, 
embodied  the  power  to  get  back  again.  But  how  can  property  be  said  to  belong  to  “  the 
Catholic  people  ”  of  Brooklyn,  when  the  Bishop  is  the  owner  thereof  in  fee  simple  abso¬ 
lute  ?  This  is  the  question  for  the  Archbishop  to  settle.  Here  is  property,  too,  in  houses, 
property  in  single  lots,  40  by  100  feet,  in  strips  of  land,  property  in  eight  lots,  in  eight 
lots  again,  in  parcels  of  five  lots,  property  in  lots  and  churches  upon  it ;  property  in  a 
quantity  of  more  than  seventeen  acres,  used  as  a  burial  place,  at  Flatbush,  and  controlled 
by  the  Bishop  as  Calvary  Cemetery  is,  and  made  a  source  of  large  revenue,  and  the  richest 
of  all  the  conveyances.  The  “  Catholic  People  ”  are  buried  here,  and  in  that  sense  only 
is  it  conveyed  to  them.  In  city  and  country,  places  for  living  in,  and  burying  in,  the  fee 
simple  is  complete  in  the  man,  and  not  in  the  Trustees  or  Church. 

I  now  give  a  record,  from  Queens  County,  of  conveyances  to  John  Hughes. 

Roman  Catholic  congregation  at  Fushing.  Deeds 
dated  1st  May,  1S49.  Rec.  liber  79,  p.  111.  Con¬ 
sideration,  $1,700. 

Conveys  lot  No.  12  and  part  of  No.  13,  on  above 
map,  and  bounded  as  follows,  to  wit :  Beginning  at 
the  southeast  corner  of  No.  11  on  said  map,  and  run¬ 
ning  thence  northerly  109  feet  3  inches,  thence  east- 
wardly,  81  feet,  to  place  of  beginning. 

No.  4. 

John  Titus  of  North  Hempstead,  and  Sarah  P.  Titus, 
his  wife,  to  John  Hughes,  Bishop,  Ac.,  and  his  suc¬ 
cessors  in  office.  Deeds  dated  17th  Feb.,  1851. 
Rec.  liber  S7,  p.  S4.  Consideration,  $140. 

Conveys  two  acres,  near  the  Westbury  Railroad 
Depot.  This  deed  conveys  property  in  trust  for  the 
benefit  of  the  Roman  Catholics  of  Westbury. 

No.  5. 

George  Clancy  and  Jane,  his  wife,  tb  John  Hughes 
of  the  City  of  New  York.  Deed  dated  14th  August, 
1S51.  Recorded  in  liber  193,  p.  136.  Considera¬ 
tion,  $10. 

Conveys  lot  25  by  100,  in  Hicksville. 

No.  6. 

Andrew  Brady  and  Margaret,  his  wife,  to  John 
Hughes,  Right  Rev.  Bishop.  Deed  dated  13th 
April,  1853.  Lib.  195,  p.  410. 

Conveys  a  lot  at  Rockaway,  opposite  Marine  Pavi¬ 
lion,  of  the  dimensions  of  150  feet  by  75  feet. 

THE  FORDHAM  PROPERTY 

Is  one  of  the  richest  estates  in  this  neighborhood.  I  have  traced  it  from  its  conveyance 
by  John  M.  Bixby  and  Alexander  Watson  to  Andrew  Carrigan,  recorded  liber  86,  July  19, 
1839,  Clerk's  Office,  County  of  Westchester,  to  the  conveyance  of  Andrew  Carrigan  and 
wife  to  John  Hughes.  Deed  dated  August  9,  1839,  and  recorded  as  above  lib.  92,  p.  125, 
con.  S29,500.  Excepting  eight  acres  and  103  perches  reserved  to  himself,  98  acres,  1  rood 
and  5  perches  of  this  splendid  property  is  nominally  held  from  John  Hughes  for  St.  John's 
College.  The  Archbishop,  however,  as  I  have  shown,  is  the  Supreme  head  and  Director  of 
this  property,  even  to  the  regulation  of  its  grounds,  fences,  switches  for  the  railroad  in 
front,  and  even  for  a  covenant  for  free  travel  to  and  from  the  College  daily,  with  fifty 
pounds  of  baggage  for  himself  or  any  one  person  he  may  name.  Its  value,  as  property  is 
and  has  been  sold  in  the  neighborhood,  is  estimated  at  $350,000. 

And  now,  if  the  Archbishop  will  excuse  me, — as  1  am  in  the  pursuit  of  knowledge 
under  difficulties, — I  want  to  know  on  what  terms  the  possessors  are  allowed  to  hold  or 
use  this  St.  John’s  College  Property,  secured  from,  and  controlled  by,  the  Archbishop.  I 
understand  that  the  said  Archbishop  is  paid  annually  for  the  privilege  the  interest  on 
$60,000.  I  believe  that  besides  this  interest,  which  may  be  paid  into  the  College  for  the 
education  of  Priests  as  bold  and  skillful  as  the  Archbishop,  a  collection  is  taken  up  once  a 
year  in  all  the  Churches  of  the  Diocese  for  the  support  of  the  Seminary.  Some  persons  of 
the  Archbishop’s  own  faith,  would  also  like  to  know  the  use  to  which  the  reserved  grounds 
are  put,  and  who  pays  for  the  support  of  the  occupant, — whether  it  comes  from  Church 
contributions,  and,  if  it  is  a  fair  business  transaction,  all  about  it.  Honest,  intelligent 
Roman  Catholics  are  the  authority  for  the  facts  stated  by  me  in  this  paragraph. 


County  Clerk’s  Office,  Queen’s  Co. 
No.  1. 

David  O’Connor  and  Margaret,  his  wife,  to  John 
Hughes,  Bishop,  Ac.  Deed  Warranty  dated  8th 
January,  1841 .  Recording  lib.  533,  p.  445.  Con¬ 
sideration,  $650. 

Two  houses  and  lots  on  Liberty  street,  in  Flushing ; 
dimension,  40  feet  front  and  rear,  by  120  feet. 

This  property  was  conveyed  by  Hughes  to  Andrew 
Ryan,  on  the  Cth  June,  1S41,  for  $600,  by  a  like  deed 
of  warranty. 

No.  2. 

Daniel  Higgins,  John  Leonard,  and  Michael  N.  Bren¬ 
nan,  Trustees  of  R.  C.  Church,  in  town  of  Flushing, 
to  John  Hughes,  Bishop,  Ac.,  and  his  successors, 
for  the  Catholic  Congregation  of  the  town  of  Flush¬ 
ing.  Warranty  deed,  1st  May,  1S49.  Considera¬ 
tion,  Love  and  Affection,  and  $1. 

Lots  Nos.  16,  15,  14,  and  part  of  13,  on  a  map 
made  by  Samuel  S.  Doughty,  of  city  of  New  York, 
surveyor,  August,  1S38.  Bounding  and  containing 
as  follows  :  Beginning  at  the  southeast,  and  running 
thence  northerly  to  the  west  side  of  Union  street, 
110  feet  4  inches  ;  thence  westerly,  144  feet  10  in. ; 
thence  southerly,  100  feet  6  inches ;  thence  easterly, 
155  ft  2  inches. 

No.  3. 

Alfred  C.  Smith  and  Elizabeth  T.,  his  wife,  to  John 
Hughes,  Bishop,  Ac.,  and  his  successors,  for  the 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN.  63 


But  to  leave  this  part  of  the  State,  for  the  present,  I  find  full  deeds  of  Conveyance  to 
Archbishop  Hughes,  and  in  his  own  name,  of  two  and  a  half  acres  of  land  in  the  town  of 
Watertown.  Also  conveyances  from  him  (from  the  Clerk’s  Office  of  Jefferson  County)  of 
two  valuable  tracts  of  land,  originally  conveyed  to  Bishop  Dubois  for  “love  of  God, 
veneration  for  the  holy  Catholic  religion  and  the  sum  of  one  dollar,”  and  two  acres  of 
land  in  the  village  of  La  Fargeville,  Jefferson  County,  to  Bishop  McCloskey. 

The  Archbishop  seems  to  have  spotted  himself  all  over  the  State,  and  to  have  had  an 
eye  to  the  useful  and  beautiful  as  well  as  the  profitable,  wherever  he  indulged  in  his  love 
of  what  the  politicians  call  “  Squatter  Sovereignty.”  Thus  I  find  in  September  and 
October  last,  the  counsel  of  the  Archbishop  in  this  city,  advertising,  in  your  columns,  436 
acres  of  this  Jefferson  County  Property,  good  for  agriculture,  good  for  a  dairy,  with  a 
garden  of  three  acres  with  a  limestone  wall,  a  stone  mansion  fifty  feet  square,  two  barns, 
and  everything  of  the  most  complete  and  susbtantial  character.  No  artist  could  picture  a 
brighter  scene  then  this,  and  a  history  is  connected  with  it  which  may  be  given  hereafter. 
“  One  of  the  most  valuable  farms  in  the  State,”  as  it  ^  called,  may  have  been  secured  for 
that  Jefferson  County  College,  which  was  originally  designed  for  the  Claremont  or  Catholic 
College. 


Erie  County  furnishes  the  following  record,  besides  Thirty-four  Conveyances  to  John 
Timon,  since  1847.  I  select  those  held  in  the  name  of  the  Archbishop  of  this  Diocese. 


No.  A. 

James  Milnor  to  the  Right  Reverend  John  Hughes, 
of  the  City  of  New  York.  Deed  dated  20th  Feb., 
1S44.  Liber  74,  p.  378. 

All  that  certain  piece  or  parcel  of  land,  being  a 
part  of  outer  lot  No.  116,  in  the  city  of  Buffalo,  and 
bounded  and  described  as  follows  :  Beginning  at  the 
point  of  intersection,  of  the  southerly  line  of  Batavia 
street,  with  the  westerly  line  of  Pine  street,  212  feet, 
thence  easterly  at  right  angles,  and  parallel  with 
Batavia  street,  132  feet,  thence  northerly,  parallel 
with  Pine  street,  212  feet  to  the  southerly  line  of  Ba¬ 
tavia  street,  and  thence  easterly  along  the  southerly 
line  of  Batavia  street,  132  feet,  to  the  place  of  begin¬ 
ning. 

No.  B. 

Theodore  Nathan  to  the  Right  Rev.  John  Hughes. 
Dated  June  19th,  1845.  Liber  80,  p.  17. 

All  that  certain  piece  or  parcel  of  land,  situate, 
lying  and  being  in  the  town  of  Surherst,  County  of 
Erie,  and  State  of  New  York,  and  being  part  of  lot 


No.  102,  in  the  12th  township  and  7th  range  of  the 
Holland  Land  Company  Survey,  and  bounded  as  fol¬ 
lows,  to  wit:  Beginning  at  the  southeast  corner  of 
said  lot,  102,  and  running  thence  west  on  the  south 
line  of  said  lot,  20  rods,  thence  at  right  angles  east, 
20  rods,  and  thence  at  right  angles  16  rods  west,  to 
the  place  of  beginning. 

No.  C. 

Conrad  Moritz,  and  six  other  Trustees,  to  the  Right 

Rev.  Dr.  John  Hughes.  Dated  Nov.  3d,  1845. 

Liber  SO,  p.  411. 

All  that  certain  piece  or  parcel  of  land,  lying  and 
being  in  the  town  of  Hamburg,  Erie  County,  being 
part  of  lot  No.  2,  in  the  9th  township,  8th  range,  and 
commencing  on  the  township  line,  and  running  on 
the  said  township  line  2  chains  and  75  links  ;  thence 
north,  S5%  deg.;  west  3  chains;  thence  south  2 
chains  and  75  links  ;  thence  south  85%  deg.,  along 
centre  of  highway,  3  chains,  to  place  of  beginning, 
together  with  the  house  of  worship  heretofore  erected 
thereon. 


And  now  may  I  here  ask,  what  was  the  La  Fargeville  property  bought  for,  and  why 
was  it  advertised  for  sale  ?  When  and  where  was  the  purchase-money  for  this  property 
obtained  ?  Was  not  each  priest  in  the  diocese  assessed  for  its  purchase,  and  why  was  it 
not  used  for  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  bought  by  this  tax  upon  the  people  ?  These  are 
questions  which  interest  men  of  your  own  faith  more  than  me,  and  they  interest  men  also 
who  would  like  to  have  some  fuller  account  of  your  stewardship  than  you  are  in  the  habit 
of  giving  them  through  your  official  organ  or  elsewhere. 

1  am,  for  to-day,  very  respectfully  yours, 

ERASTUS  BROOKS. 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES’  LETTER  ON  THE  CHURCH  PROPERTY  LAW- 
AMOUNT  OF  REAL  ESTATE  IN  THE  HANDS  OF  THE  BISHOP. 

<!****  jfater  yeritatis  dies  non  permissura  sit  longum  fraudibus  regnum.” — Grotius  de  Imp. 
S.  P .,  100  J.  6. 

“  *  *  *  *  Light,  the  mother  of  Truth,  will  not  permit  deception  to  enjoy  a  long  reign.” 

TO  THE  PUBLIC. 

During  the  last  session  of  the  New  York  Legislature,  a  petition  was  presented  by  the 
trustees  of  St.  Louis  Church,  Buffalo,  complaining  of  pretended  grievances  which  they 
had  suffered,  as  they  alleged,  at  the  hands  of  their  ecclesiastical  superiors,  and  praying 


CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


G4 


for  an  act  of  civil  legislation  on  the  part  of  the  State,  by  which  their  religious  grievances 
might  be  brought  to  an  end,  and  similar  ones  henceforth  prevented  in  other  congregations. 
In  that  petition  they  avowed,  among  other  numerous  falsehoods,  that  “  Bishop  Hughes 
had  attempted  to  compel  them  (the  trustees)  to  make  the  title  of  their  church  over  to 
him.’’  The  Hon.  Mr.  Putnam  drafted  a  bill  of  contingents,  confiscations,  and  penalties 
against  the  Catholics  of  this  State,  unless  their  bishops  should  henceforth  govern  and 
regulate  all  matters  affecting  church  property  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  act. 
The  undersigned  denied  that  there  was  one  word,  or  syllable,  or  letter  of  truth  in  the 
statement  quoted  from  the  petition,  and  Mr.  William  B.  Le  Couteulex  has  since  admitted 
its  entire  falsehood,  even  while  attempting  to  vindicate  his  own  course  and  that  of  his 
fellow-trustees.  Notwithstanding  the  falsehoods  of  the  statement  in  the  petition,  they  are 
entirely  adopted  by  Mr.  Putnam,  and  the  one  already  mentioned  is  specially  incorporated 
in  his  speech  in  favor  of  the  bill.  There  is  no  evidence  that  Mr.  Putnam  was  then  aware 
of  the  falsehood  which  he  had  adopted  from  the  text  of  the  petition.  But  he  must  be 
aware  of  it  now. 

Mr.  Senator  Brooks  of  this  city  also  made  a  speech  on  the  same  side.  By  him  the 
falsehood  or  falsehoods  of  the  Buffalo  petition,  adopted  by  Mr.  Senator  Putnam,  were 
entirely  thrown  in  the  shade  by  the  gigantic  scale  on  which  he  projected  his.  According 
to  him,  Bishop  Hughes  was  the  owner,  in  his  own  personal  right,  of  an  immense  amount 
of  real  estate  in  the  city  of  New  York.  He  supposed  its  value  to  be  little  short  of 
$5,000,000.  It  consisted,  according  to  him,  of  no  less  than  fifty-eight  distinct  parcels  of 
real  estate — some  of  them  covering  “  whole  squares  of  land,”  and  all  recorded  in  the  Regis¬ 
ter’s  office,  to  the  number  of  fifty-eight  entries.  Of  this  property  there  were,  according 
to  Mr.  Brooks,  “  numerous  transfers  from  trustees,”  and  lest  any  Senator  should  doubt  his 
veracity,  he  sported  a  pretended  reference  as  from  the  records  in  the  Register’s  office, 
giving  book,  number,  and  page  for  the  correctness  of  his  statements. 

One  is  at  a  loss  whether  to  be  surprised  more  at  the  boldness  of  this  man’s  falsehoods, 
or  at  the  imbecile  credulity  of  a  public  calling  itself  enlightened,  who  nevertheless 
seemed  to  receive  his  statements  as  so  many  gospel  truths. 

Shortly  after  my  return  from  Europe,  I  called  the  attention  of  Senator  Brooks  to  the 
wantonness  and  extravagance  of  his  assertions.  My  letter  was  written  in  a  spirit  of  play¬ 
fulness.  I  intimated  that,  after  reserving  to  myself,  against  the  wants  of  old  age,  out  of 
this  property,  little  short  of  $5,000,000,  as  Mr.  Brooks  had  asserted,  the  sum  of 
$2,000,000,  I  should  appropriate  all  the  balance,  say  $2,750,000,  to  the  founding  of  a 
magnificent  library,  which  should  be  worthy  of  New  York  ;  and  as  I  was  indebted  to  the 
Senator  for  my  immense  fortune,  it  should  bear  his  name,  and  be  called  “  The  Erastus 
Brooks  Library.” 

I  intimated,  however,  in  a  tone  sufficiently  serious  to  attract  his  attention,  that  his 
statements  were  uutrue,  and  called  upon  him  either  to  prove  or  retract  them.  He  chose 
the  alternative  of  proof,  and  the  public  will  see  how  desperate  is  the  condition  of  a  man 
who  undertakes  to  prove  a  falsehood,  since  truth  will  ever  scorn  to  be  a  handmaid  in  such 
an  enterprise,  and  will  leave  him  entirely  dependent  on  his  ingenuity  for  the  inventing  of 
secondary  falsehoods  in  support  of  those  which  were  primary. 

Out  of  this  grew  the  late  controversy  between  Mr.  Brooks  and  myself.  It  was  not  my 
business  to  prove  that  the  statements  of  his  speech  were  false.  It  was  his  to  prove  them 
true.  It  was  but  fair  that  he  should  have  full  scope  to  accomplish  this  awful  task  in  his 
own  way,  and  the  public  have  witnessed  the  industry  with  which  he  has  prosecuted  the 
work. 

It  has  been  matter  of  surprise  to  some  that  I  should  not  have  had  at  any  moment  my 
proofs  at  hand  to  refute  both  the  primary  and  secondary  falsehood  of  Mr.  Brooks,  in 
other  words,  that  I  was  not  prepared  to  prove  a  negative,  which  no  man  has  ever  done  by 
argument,  and  which  no  man  can  ever  do.  The  proof  of  a  negative  must  always  be  by 
deduction  from  argument  which  is  positive  ;  and  how  could  I  bring  my  proofs  of  a  nega¬ 
tive  through  the  medium  of  positive  facts  to  a  close  until  Mr.  Brooks  should  have 
completed  his  whole  winding  and  tortuous  career  of  mendacity.  I  believe  he  has  done 
this  at  least,  and  now  it  is  time  for  me  to  bring  my  positive  facts  to  bear  upon  his 
positive  falsehoods,  scatter  them  to  the  winds,  and  leave  him  standing  before  the  community 
a  self-degraded,  self-ruined  man. 

But  before  I  commence,  it  is  proper  to  state  that  whatever  property  may  be  found  on 
the  records  of  the  Register’s  books,  in  the  city  of  New  York,  in  my  name  is,  in  equity  and 
truth  though  not  in  a  legal  form,  the  property  of  the  several  congregations,  to  be  enume¬ 
rated  hereafter  ;  that  the  management  of  this  property  has  been  by  a  rule  of  the  dioceses, 
dating  as  far  back  as  1843,  in  the  hands  of  the  respective  pastors  of  each  congregation, 
who  are  required  to  associate  with  them  one  or  two  respectable  and  competent  lay¬ 
men,  to  assist  them  in  the  administration  of  the  temporalities  of  their  church — to  keep 
regular  accounts  of  its  income,  its  expenditures,  &c. — to  make  and  publish,  from  time 
to  time,  at  least  once  a  year,  a  report  of  the  condition  of  the  church,  to  be  distributed 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN.  65 


among  their  pew-holders,  and  a  copy  of  the  same  lo  be  forwarded  to  the  archiepiscopal 
residence,  in  order  to  have  it  inserted  in  a  diocesan  register,  kept  for  that  purpose.  The 
title  of  these  church  lots  was  vested  nominally  in  the  bishop.  But  he  never  considered 
this  as  giviDg  him  any  more  right  to  the  ownership  in  the  sense  of  Mr.  Brooks,  than 
he  would  have  to  regard  as  his  own  an  offering  of  charity  handed  to  him  for  the  benefit 
of  the  orphan  asylum.  Neither  has  he  ever  received  so  much  as  one  farthing  of  revenue 
or  income  from  this  property,  in  consequence  of  his  nominal  ownership.  Neither  has  he 
troubled  himself  with  the  management  of  the  temporalities  of  these  congregations, 
except  in  so  far  as  to  prevent  the  church  property  from  being  mortgaged  or  exposed 
to  alienation,  as  had  been  the  case  under  the  irresponsible  management  of  lay  trustees, 
Whenever  the  clergyman  and  his  advisers  reported  to  the  Bishop  the  expediency  of  their 
doing  something  in  regard  to  such  property,  he  acquiesced  as  often  as  his  judgment 
approved  of  their  proposal.  In  this  way  deeds,  and  titles,  and  transfers,  and  mortgages, 
&c.,  were  brought  to  him  from  time  to  time  for  signatures,  and,  as  a  matter  of  course,  he 
went  through  the  legal  formality  of  appending  his  name.  So  also  when  new  lots  were 
purchased  for  the  erection  of  new  churches  required  by  the  increasing  numbers  of  the 
faithful,  the  deed  was  made  out  in  the  Bishop’s  name,  and  the  local  pastor  and  his  asso¬ 
ciates  managed  all  the  rest. 

It  is  hardly  to  be  wondered  at,  therefore,  that  the  Bishop  himself  should  have  been 
almost  taken  by  surprise  by  the  display  of  documents  exhibited  by  Mr.  Brooks,  purport¬ 
ing  to  be  extracts  from  the  records  in  the  Register’s  office.  The  Archbishop  was  perfectly 
aware,  in  a  general  way,  that  Mr.  Brooks  had  entered  boldly  on  a  career  of  falsehood ; 
but  he  was  not  prepared  to  suppose  that  a  Senator  of  the  State  of  New  York,  in  order  to 
brazen  it  out  against  him,  would  have  dared  to  falsify  the  public  records.  This,  how¬ 
ever,  Mr.  Brooks  has  done. 

Before  proceeding  to  exhibit  the  secondary  falsehoods  of  Mr.  Brooks  more  at  length,  I 
shall  give  a  statement  of  all  the  property  recorded  in  my  name  in  the  Register’s  office  on 
the  day  of  the  Senator’s  speech.  It  is  the  same  to-day,  as  nothing  has  been  added  to  or 
taken  from  it  since. 

The  property,  then,  which  is  recorded  in  my  name  is  the  aggregate  of  lots  on  which 
fifteen  different  Catholic  congregations  have  their  places  of  worship,  their  priests’  resi¬ 
dences,  and  in  some  instances  their  schools.  The  number  of  these  lots  is  seventy-seven 
(77),  giving  a  fraction  over  five  lots  each  for  the  church  edifices  of  these  fifteen  con¬ 
gregations.  I  am  told  by  competent  judges  that  if  these  lots»were  to  be  sold,  the 
buildings  on  them,  though  exceedingly  valuable  to  the  Catholics  as  places  for  the  purposes 
of  Divine  public  worship,  would  not  add  to  their  value  in  the  estimation  of  purchasers. 
I  am  further  told  by  competent  judges  that,  scattered  as  they  are  at  various  points,  from 
Barclay  street  to  Manhattanville,  they  would  not  fetch  more,  one  with  another,  than  §5,000 
each  lot.  This  would  produce,  as  the  total  value  of  property  recorded  in  the  Register's 
office  in  the  name  of  the 


Archbishop,  the  sum  of .  $385,000 

But  in  the  same  Register’s  office  there-  are  recorded,  as  incumbrances  on  these  77  lots, 
mortgages  to  the  amount,  in  the  aggregate,  of .  : .  $245,640 


Reducing  the  net  value  of  property  recorded  in  the  name  of  Archbishop  Hughes, 
to  the  alarming  sum  (not  of  a  little  short  of  $5,000,000  but)  of .  $139,360 


It  is  to  be  observed  that,  before  *the  Archbishop  could  realize  even  this  sum,  it  would 
be  necessary  for  him,  not  only  to  become  a  dishonest  man,  but  also  to  go  through  the 
process  of  turning  fifteen  Catholic  congregations,  with  their  respective  priests,  into  the 
streets  of  the  city. 

Such  are  the  length,  and  breadth,  and  height,  and  depth,  of  all  the  real  estate  recorded 
in  the  name  of  Archbishop  Hughes,  in  the  books  of  the  Register’s  office.  I  trust  the 
Protestant  community  will  breathe  more  freely  in  consequence  of  knowing  this  fact.  I 
trust  also  that  our  Catholic  laity  will  be  better  prepared  to  give  an  answer  when  the  supposed 
immense  wealth  of  their  Archbishop  is  made  a  reproach  to  them. 

I  may  as  well  add  here,  that  the  property  of  the  Cathedral,  including  Calvary  Cemetery, 
is  managed  by  the  trustees  of  St.  Patrick’s  Church — that  they  receive  and  expend  and  keep 
an  account  of  all  income  and  all  outlays  connected  with  their  trust — that  the  Archbishop's 
relation  to  it  is  precisely  the  same  as  that  of  his  predecessor — that  he  has  no  personal 
income  even  to  the  amount  of  one  farthing  from  these  revenues,  except  what  is  annually 
appropriated  by  the  board  for  his  decent  maintainance  ;  that  the  sum  thus  appropriated, 
though  sufficient,  is  yet  moderate  enough ;  and  that  if  it  is  not  more,  the  reason  is,  that 
the  Archbishop  has-  more  than  once  declined  to  accept  a  larger  amount. 

There  was  a  period  during  the  late  controversy  between  Mr  Brooks  and  myself  when  I 
almost  doubted  w'hether  falsehood  would  not  gain  the  victory  over  truth.  A  perfect  novice 
as  regards  deeds,  and  titles,  and  formalities  of  law,  I  should  not  have  known  where  to  com- 


66 


CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


mence  ray  refutation  of  the  man  of  falsehood.  Accordingly  I  referred  the  matter  to  two 
respectable  legal  gentlemen,  namely,  Messrs.  T.  James  Glover  and  W.  C.  Wetmore.  When 
I  asked  the  public  to  suspend  their  judgment  for  ten  days  or  two  weeks,  it  was  that  these 
gentlemen  might  have  time  to  examine  the  records  in  the  Register’s  office.  This  they  have 
done.  They  have  followed  Mr  Brooks,  number  by  number.  They  have  examined  every¬ 
thing  alleged  by  him  as  on  the  authority  of  the  public  records.  And  from  their  reliable 
statements  now  submitted  I  shall  be  able  to  show  that  Mr  Brooks  has  been  guilty  of 
numerous  deliberate  and  wilful  falsehoods,  including  the  daring  experiment  of  perverting 
and  falsifying  the  very  records  which  he  pretended  to  cite.  Here  are  the  letter  and 
report  of  Messrs.  Glover  and  Wetmore  : — 

To  the  Most  Rev.  Archbishop  Hughes:— 

In  compliance  with  your  request,  we  have  examined  the  various  records  of  conveyances  to  you  mentioned 
in  the  several  letters  of  Senator  Brooks,  as  well  as  others  made  by  you;  and  we  beg  leave  to  present  to  you, 
as  the  result  of  such  examination,  the  accompanying  report,  upon  the  accuracy  of  which  you  may  confidently 
rely. 

We  have  only  to  observe  that  the  respective  deeds  are  numbered  to  correspond  with  the  numbers  used  by 
Senator  Brooks,  and  that  those  which  are  not  noticed  are  correctly  cited  by  him,  except  some  inaccuracies  of 
reference. 

We  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servants, 

T.  JAMES  GLOVER. 

New  Tore,  May  11th,  1S55.  W.  C.  WETMORE. 

REPORT. 

No.  1  is  a  lease  for  999  years  at  a  nominal  rent,  but  with  a  covenant  on  the  part  of  the  lessee  to  maintain  a 
church  according  to  the  rights  and  discipline  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 

No.  2  is  an  assignment  of  a  lease  affecting  the  same  premises  mentioned  in  No.  19.  The  lots  belonging  to 
St.  Paul’s  Church  at  Harlem  were  assessed  for  the  opening  of  117th  street,  in  1S40.  They  were  sold  to 
P.  Doherty,  for  non-payment  of  the  assessment,  and  the  same  not  being  redeemed,  were  leased  to  him  by  the 
Mayor,  &c.,  of  the  City  of  New  York,  for  twenty  years.  This  is  the  lease  assigned  by  P.  Doherty  to  the  Right 
Rev.  John  Hughes,  as  stated  in  No.  2.  The  identical  premises  were  conveyed  by  the  Sheriff,  in  an  execution 
sale  against  the  Trustees  of  St.  Paul’s  Church,  to  the  Right  Rev.  John  Hughes,  as  set  out  in  No.  19.  The  two 
deeds  convey  but  one  and  the  same  piece  of  property. 

No.  3  is  between  the  same  parties,  and  for  the  same  premises  mentioned  in  No.  7. 

No.  6  is  a  deed  by  Patton  and  wife,  of  the  half  part  of  a  vault  for  burial  on  the  premises  mentioned  in 
No.  10. 

No.  7  is  the  same  as  No.  8,  as  above  stated. 

No.  8  is  correctly  stated  as  follows : 

Bartholomew  O’Connor,  of  the  first  part,  to  Right  Rev.  John  Hughes  of  the  second  part.  Deed  dated  7th 
Feb.,  rec.  22d  Sept.,  1845,  lib.  465,  p.  514. 

This  deed  cites  a  conveyance  by  the  Trustees  of  Christ  Church  to  Bartholomew  O’Connor,  dated  5th  Jan., 
1S43,  whereby  the  trustees,  with  the  consent  of  the  Court  of  Chancery,  assigned  their  lands,  &c.,  upon  trust 
to  sell  the  same,  and  out  of  the  proceeds  to  pay  their  creditors.  It  then,  in  consideration  of  $42,000,  conveys 
the  four  lots  on  James  street,  and  also  the  vestments,  church  furniture,  and  organ.  Mr.  O’Connor  is  nowhere 
styled  Trustee  to  Christ  Church,  nor  Trustee  of  Christ  Church,  nor  was  he  such  in  fact  or  in  law,  nor  can  he 
with  propriety  be  so  styled.  He  was  simply  an  assignee  for  the  benefit  of  creditors,  by  virtue  of  an  assign¬ 
ment  made  January,  1843,  and  conveyed  the  premises  in  February,  1S45,  to  the  Right  Rev.  John  Hughes,  in 
the  same  manner  as  he  might  have  done  to  any  other  purchaser. 

No.  9  is  a  conveyance  of  the  property  of  the  Sacred  Heart,  at  Manhattanville,  the  whole  of  which  was 
subsequently  conveyed  to  Aloysia  Hardy,  by  deed  dated  10th  February,  1S47,  recorded  on  the  17th  of  Janu¬ 
ary,  1848,  lib.  497,  p.  292. 

No.  11.  The  premises  mentioned  in  this  deed,  executed  by  Z.  Kantze,  though  separately  numbered  on  the 
map,  really  form  but  one  lot,  having  a  front  on  the  street  of  25  feet  by  about  160  feet  deep. 

Nos.  14, 15, 16  all  relate  to  the  property  of  the  Convent  of  Mercy.  No.  14  is  an  assignment  of  a  lease  for 
life  of  one  lot  on  Mulberry  street.  No.  15  is  a  confirmation  of  a  previous  deed  by  the  attorney ;  in  fact,  of 
Mr.  Rea  to  W.  H.  Butler,  the  power  of  attorney  having  been  tost.  No.  21  is  the  main  source  of  title  to  this 
property.  The  whole  of  it  was  conveyed  by  the  Right  Rev.  John  Hughes  to  the  “  Institution  of  Mercy,”  a9 
soon  as  incorporated  according  to  law,  by  deed  dated  1st  June,  1854,  recorded  15th  June,  1854,  lib.  663, 
page  368. 

No.  17  is  a  conveyance  of  a  “  strip  of  land,”  not  a  lot,  being  only  two  inches  in  width  by  100  feet  in  depth, 
adjoining  another  lot. 

No.  IS  is  the  conveyance  of  an  irregular  piece  of  land  on  the  corner  of  27th  street  and  Madison  avenue  ;  on 
the  preceding  page  of  the  record,  is  a  release  of  dower  in  the  same  premises,  in  consideration  for  the  $3,377 
63-100.  The  whole  of  this  piece  of  land  was  conveyed  by  the  Most  Rev.  Archbishop  to  the  Harlem  Railroad 
Company,  by  deed  dated  6th  January,  1853,  recorded  2d  April,  1S5S,  lib.  616,  page  640. 

No.  19  is  the  Sheriff’s  deed  mentioned  above,  under  the  head  of  No.  2,  and  conveys  the  same  premises. 

No.  22  is  a  deed  of  confirmation  of  the  same  premises  described  in  No.  46.  The  latter  (No.  46)  is  a  deed 
from  the  Rev  Felix  Varella  to  the  Most. Rev.  John  Hughes,  of  the  property  known  as  Transfiguration  Church. 
It  bears  date  April  23d,  1S50,  and  was  recorded  on  the  1st  day  of  November,  1S50,  in  liber  554.  page  4S6.  The 
conveyance  No.  22  bears  date  December  9th,  1851,  and  was  recorded  in  lib.  591,  page  26S.  This  deed  recites 
upon  its  face  an  order  of  the  Supreme  Court,  dated  22d  November,  1851,  authorizing  the  trustees  to  execute 
it  in  confirmation  of  the  title  of  the  grantee.  The  whole  of  those  premises  mentioned  in  the  above  deed  was 
conveyed  by  the  Most  Rev.  Archbishop  to  L.  J.  Wyeth,  by  deed  dated  2d  May,  1S58,  recorded  the  same  day, 
lib.  640,  page  644. 

No.  26  is  an  assignment  of  a  lease  for  the  nnexpired  portion  of  a  term,  having  originally  only  three  years 
and  six  months  to  run,  from  November  1, 1S50. 

No.  41  is  a  conveyance  from  the  corporation  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  known  as  Zion  Church. 

No.  43  is  a  conveyance  of  four  lots  on  the  corner  of  Fifth  Avenue  and  50th  street,  being  100  feet  5  inches  on 
the  Avenue,  by  100  feet  in  depth.  It  is  not  a  conveyance  of  a  “square  of  land,”  in  the  sense  in  which  the 
term  is  used,  nor  indeed  in  any  sense. 

But  the  entire  premises  described  in  this  deed  were  conveyed  by  the  Most  Rev.  Archbishop  Hughes  to  the 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN. 


67 


trustees  of  St.  Patrick’s  Cathedral,  by  deed  dated  February  Sth,  1853;  recorded  March  9th,  1S53;  lib.  630 
page  337. 

No.  46  has  been  already  disposed  of. 

The  deed  of  the  Orphan  Asylum  property  is  correctly  stated  as  follows  : 

The  Mayor,  Aldermen,  &c.,  of  the  City  of  New  York,  of  the  first  part,  to  the  Roman  Catholic  Orphan  Asy¬ 
lum  Society  in  the  City  of  New  York,  of  the  second  part,  deed  dated  August  1, 1846,  recorded  in  book  A  of 
Deeds,  p.  271,  Comptroller’s  Office,  conveys  a  piece  of  land  on  5th  Avenue,  between  51st  and  52d  streets,  and 
extending  easterly  450  feet,  upon  condition  that  the  parties  of  the  second  part  erect  thereon,  within  three 
years,  a  building  to  be  approved  by  the  Mayor,  and  that  they  keep  the  premises  for  the  purposes  contem¬ 
plated  by  their  charter.  The  counterpart  is  signed  by  the  President  and  Secretary  of  the  Board  of  Trustees 
of  the  Asylum. 

T.  JAMES  GLOVER, 
W.  C.  WETMORE. 

The  foregoing  authentic  statement,  taken  from  the  records,  will  warrant  me  in  summing 
up  the  result  of  the  examination  made  by  Messrs.  Glover  and  Wetmore  as  follows  : — 

I.  Mr.  Brooks  has  falsified  the  record  by  styling  Bartholomew  O’Connor  “trustee  to 
Christ  church.” 

II.  He  falsely  cited  the  deed  from  the  trustees  of  Transfiguration  church,  executed  in 
1851.  The  falsehood  consisted  in  suppressing  what  appears  on  the  face  of  that  deed — that 
it  was  simply  in  confirmation  of  a  title  previously  vested  in  the  Archbishop.  The 
premises  had  been,  in  truth,  conveyed  by  Rev.  F.  Varella,  in  1850. 

III.  He  intentionally  falsifies  when  he  declares  that  the  deed  by  Michael  Curran  con¬ 
veyed  a  “  square  of  land.” 

IV.  He  wilfully  counts  the  following  premises  twice ; 

1.  The  property  of  St.  Paul’s  church — in  one  case  under  the  lease  from  P.  Doherty,  and 
again  under  the  deed  from  Westervelt. 

2.  The  half  part  of  a  vault  for  burial  under  the  deed  from  Patten  and  wife,  the  same 
being  embraced  in  the  premises  conveyed  by  Rev.  Andrew  Byrne. 

3.  The  lot  described  in  deed  from  Mr.  Rea — in  one  case  under  that  deed,  and  again 
under  deed  from  G.  TV.  Hall. 

4.  The  Transfiguration  church  property — first  under  the  Varella  deed,  and  again  under 
the  deed  of  confirmation. 

V.  He  includes  the  following  property,  though  conveyed  away  by  the  Archbishop  : — 

1.  The  property  of  the  Sacred  Heart,  at  Manhattanville. 

2.  The  property  of  the  Institution  of  Mercy. 

3.  The  property  at  the  corner  of  Madison  Avenue  and  twenty-seventh  street. 

Senator  Brooks  will  not  deny  that  he  knew  the  Archbishop  had  conveyed  away  this 

property,  for  he  cites  the  deed  to  the  Harlem  Railroad  Company  in  the  very  letter  in 
which  he  falsely  attributes  to  the  Archbishop  the  ownership  of  it. 

4.  The  property  of  the  Transfiguration  church.  Not  content  with  setting  it  down  as 
still  vested  in  the  name  of  the  Archbishop,  though  it  had  been  conveyed  away,  Mr.  Brooks 
counts  it  twice. 

5.  The  four  lots  at  the  corner  of  Fifth  avenue  and  Fiftieth  street. 

VI.  He  counts  the  following  as  entire  lots  : — 

1.  The  half  of  a  vault  for  burial. 

2.  The  strip  of  land  two  inches  wide,  conveyed  by  Costar’s  executors. 

3.  A  piece  of  land  15  feet  by  97  feet  4  inches,  conveyed  by  R.  Kein. 

4.  A  piece  of  land  26  feet  3  inches  by  32  feet  6  inches,  conveyed  by  Wood’s  executors. 

VII.  He  counts  the  leasehold  lot  assigned  by  J.  R.  Baily,  although  the  term  had  expired 
on  the  1st  of  May,  1854. 

VIII.  He  counts  the  property  conveyed  by  Z.  Kantz  as  two  lots,  the  same  fprming  in 
truth  but  one. 

This  reduces  the  number  of  deeds  of  lots  now  vested  in  the  Archbishop  from  fifty-eight, 
as  stated  in  his  speech  of  the  6th  of  March,  and  from  forty-six  as  stated  in  his  false  reports 
purporting  to  be  from  the  records,  to  thirty-two  ;  and  the  number  of  lots  is  reduced  from  one 
hundred  and  one,  as  reported  by  Mr.  Brooks,  to  seventy-seven.  Thus,  between  the  state¬ 
ment  of  his  speech  in  the  Senate  as  regards  the  number  of  entries,  and  the  truth  as  at¬ 
tested  by  Messrs.  Glover  and  Wetmore  of  twenty-six,  and  between  the  number  of  lots 
as  reported  by  him  after  a  pretended  investigation  to  the  records  and  his  truth,  as  attested 
by  the  same  gentlemen,  a  difference  of  twenty-four  lots  appears.  Thus  the  whole  number 


of  lots  stated  by  Mr.  Brooks . . .  101 

Strike  out  the  following  ; — 

1.  Lease,  St.  John’s .  3 

2.  Lease,  J.  R.  Bailey,  expired  May,  1854 .  1 

3.  Lease,  P.  Doherty,  counted  twice . .  1 

4.  Deed,  Patten,  do.  do .  1 

5.  Deed,  Jas.  Rea,  do.  do .  1 

6.  Deed,  Trustees  of  Transfiguration  Church,  do .  2 

7.  Deed,  Cammann,  conveyed  away .  1 


CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


68 


8.  Deed,  G.  W.  Hall,  do.  do .  6 

9.  Deed,  M.  A.  Gafney,  do.  do .  ...  2 

10.  Deed,  Rev.  F.  Varella,  do.  do .  2 

11.  Deed,  Mich’l  Curran,  do.  do..... . square .  1 

12.  Deed,  Costar's  executors,  a  strip .  1 

13.  Deed,  R.  Kein,  part  of  lot .  1 

14.  Deed,  Wood’s  executors,  part  of  lot .  1 

Making  in  all . ■  •  ■  • . — 24. 

Which  substracted  from  101,  as  reported  by  Mr.  Brooks,  leaves  a 

balance,  as  has  been  elsewhere  mentioned . . .  77. 


It  would  require  a  small  volume  to  develop  at  length  all  the  circumstances  of  meanness 
that  characterize  the  falsehoods  of  which  Mr  Brooks  has  been  guilty.  I  may  say  in 
general  that  all  falsehoods  range  themselves  under  either  one  or  other  of  these  two  heads, 
namely  : — 1st.  The  assertion  of  something  that  has  no  existence  in  reality  ;  or  second, 
the  denial  of  something  which  has.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  falsehood  has  no  real  existence 
except  as  the  negative  of  truth,  and  conseqently  what  is  called  public  opinion  has  no 
power  either  to  create  truth  from  falsehood,  or  to  destroy  truth  and  render  it  false.  Public 
opinion  to  be  worth  anything,  as  regards  things  which  exist,  or  things  which  do  not,  ought 
to  be  the  legitimate  offspring  of  truth — its  creation,  not  its  creator. 

A  friend  of  mine  has  preserved  some  four  columns  of  scraps  taken  from  different  news¬ 
papers,  published  for  the  most  part  in  the  interior,  and  copied  into  the  Express  of  this 
city,  as  evidence  of  public  opinion  in  regard  to  the  issue  of  the  late  controversy  between 
Mr.  Brooks  and  myself.  The  generality  of  the  press,  however,  and  especially  iu  the  large . 
cities,  have  had  the  kindness  to  abstain  from  pronouncing  a  judgment  on  the  question  of 
veracity  until  the  evidence  should  be  all  in,  and  the  testimony  closed  on  both  sides.  For 
this  just  course  of  forbearance,  pending  the  controversy,  and  especially  since  I  solicited  a 
suspension  of  judgment  for  ten  days  or  two  weeks,  I  now  make  my  grateful  acknowledg¬ 
ments.  But  I  have  no  such  acknowledgments  to  make  to  the  journals  which  have  pro¬ 
nounced  a  premature  judgment,  and  whose  hasty  opinions  have  been  eagerly  gathered  into 
the  columns  of  the  Express.  Having  endorsed  Mr.  Brooks  without  waiting  to  know  what 
they  were  about,  it  was  but  consistent  that  they  should  vilify  Archbishop  Hughes,  which 
they  have  not  failed  to  do.  I  do  not  ask  them  to  retract  what  they  have  said.  I  do  not 
ask  them  to  recall  or  change  their  opinions  on  the  subject ;  but  I  do  ask  them,  as  the  only 
reparation  which  it  is  in  iheir  power  to  make,  to  publish  this  letter  in  their  respective 
papers.  If  they  are  honourable  men  they  will  do  so.  If  I  were  their  enemy,  which  I  am 
not,  I  could  not  desire  to  inflict  on  them  a  more  humilitntiug  punishment  for  their  unfair 
and  rash  judgment.  If  they  only  publish  this  letter,  they  may,  of  course,  if  they  choose, 
still  continue  to  encourage  falsehood  and  the  falsification  of  public  documents  by  their 
continued  endorsement  of  Mr.  Senator  Brooks. 

It  is  customary  throughout  nearly  all  Christendom  for  a  Catholic  bishop  to  prefix  the 
sign  of  the  Cross  to  his  signature.  Most  of  the  editors  just  now  referred  to,  and  who  have 
been  fabricating  public  opinion  for  the  New  York  Express,  seem  to  be  too  poor  in  the 
resources  of  their  printing  offices  to  possess  any  type  which  would  represent  the  symbol  of 
Christianity,  and  as  the  next  substitute  thereto,  or  rather  in  ridicule  thereof,  they  have 
adopted  the  symbol  of  the  assassin — the  dagger.  They  imagine,  apparently,  that  this 
substitute  will  make  tremendous  havoc  on  the  reputation  of  Archbishop  Hughes.  But 
they  seem  to  forget  that  the  sign  of  the  Cross  is  the  sign  of  man’s  redemption  ;  that  symbol 
in  which  St.  Paul  gloried,  and  the  symbol  which,  when  represented  by  a  dagger,  they  are 
giving  over  to  the  scandal  of  youth,  the  ridicule  of  the  infidel,  and  the  scoffer  at  Christianity. 
And  yet  our  type  founders  are  not  surely  so  barren  of  ingenuity  as  not  to  be  able  to  invent 
something  outside  of  the  alphabet  which  would  give  a  grave  and  decent  idea  of  the  sign  of 
His  Cross.  Every  civilized  nation  is  familiar  with  symbolic  language.  Nor  are  we,  as  a 
people,  at  all  deficient  in  this  respect,  with  the  single  exception  which  I  have  just  men¬ 
tioned.  Outside  the  alphabet  we  have  our  symbolic  type  to  represent,  for  instance,  a  sec¬ 
tion  of  railway,  a  steam  engine,  a  tree,  a  house,  a  stray  horse,  or  a  runaway  negro.  Iu  \ 
fact,  we  have  in  our  printing  offices  symbolic  type  for  almost  everything  except  the  sign 
of  the  cross.  Surely  it  cannot  be  that  our  printers  are  so  excessively  American,  according 
to  the  late  and  improved  sense  of  that  term,  that  they  reject  the  sign  of  the  cross,  because 
it  symbolizes  a  foreign  religion.  Alas,  if  all  Americans  were  like  some  of  our  modern 
legislators,  Christianity — the  thing  symbolized,  as  well  as  its  type — would  be  foreign 
enough.  Be  this,  however,  as  it  may,  I  will  forgive  those  editors  if  they  will  only  publish 
this  letter,  and  allow  their  readers  to  see  and  study  the  melancholy  evidences  it  exhibits 
of  the  humiliating  position  into  which  their  rash,  hasty,  unjust  conclusions  in  my  regard, 
and  their  blind  reliance  on  the  veracity  of  Senator  Brooks,  have  betrayed  them.  Their 
readers  will  perceive  that  the  Hon.  Senator  has  left  no  species  of  falsehood  unemployed. 
Being,  no  doubt,  acquainted  with  the  rules  of  evidence,  they  will  perceive  that  he  has 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN.  69 


perpetrated  falsehood  direct — assertio  falsi — which,  if  such  a  term  can  he  applied  in  such 
a  case,  is  manly  and  undisguised  falsehood — as,  for  example,  the  “  whole  squares  of  land” 
which,  in  his  speech,  he  said  were  mine.  This  is  the  out  and  out  assertio  falsi,  without  a 
shadow  of  mitigation.  The  next  species  is  the  insinuation  of  what  is  false — suggestio  falsi. 
Take,  for  example,  the  case  in  which  he  intimates  and  would  have  the  public  to  believe 
that  the  property  given  to  the  Orphan  Asylum  by  the  corporation  of  the  city,  was  given 
to  me,  on  the  plea  that  my  name,  as  President  of  the  society,  and  that  of  its  Secretary, 
were  signed  to  the  conditions  on  which  the  conveyance  had  been  made.  The  third  species 
is  the  suppressing  of  the  truth — suppressio  veri.  This  has  been  exemplified  by  our 
Senator  ;  for  instance,  in  the  case  of  the  deed  which  has  on  its  face,  as  certified  by  Messrs. 
Glover  and  Wetmore,  “  in  confirmation”  of  a  previous  title.  If  the  first  species  of  false¬ 
hood  here  alluded  to  be  regarded  as  at  least  bold,  open,  manly  and  out-spoken,  the  second 
and  third,  wherever  a  question  of  veracity  is  involved,  are  always  looked  upon  as  low, 
sneaking  and  base.  On  the  w'hole,  it  appears  from  records  and  testimony,  which  Mr 
Brooks  will  not  dare  deny,  that  he  is  an  expert  in  every  department  of  falsehood,  and  that 
we  can  say  of  him,  but  in  a  different  sense,  what  the  poet  said  of  Sheridan— he 

*  *  *  *  Kan 

Through  each  mode  of  the  lyre,  and  was  master  of  all. 

Time  will  not  permit  me  to  go  into  further  details  on  this  melancholy  subject.  I  pre¬ 
sume  the  public  is  disgusted  with  the  exhibition  which  Senator  Brooks  has  rendered  it  my 
painful,  but  imperative  duty  thus  to  furnish,  on  the  authority  of  witnesses  and  records, 
which  he  cannot  gainsay.  The  reader,  however,  cannot  be  more  disgusted  with  it  than 
the  writer  is;  and  if  he  will  cast  his  eye  back  over  the  correspondence  which  has  taken 
place,  he  will  see  that  I  left  nothing  undone,  at  an  earlier  stage  of  its  progress,  to  warn 
and  save  Mr.  Brooks  from  results  which  he  was  determined  on  realizing  to  the  bitter  end. 
I  spoke  of  the  bad  example  to  our  youth  which  would  result  from  his  course.  I  reminded 
him  that  his  reputation  belonged  not  to  himself  but  to  his  country,  and  that  he  was  not  at 
liberty  to  trifle  with  it.  I  tried  to  rouse  him  to  the  dangers  of  his  career  by  language  ap¬ 
proaching  insult,  in  order  to  bring  him  to  an  issue  on  some  specific  question  of  veracity, 
before  he  should  have  accumulated  on  his  head  this  mountain,  which  not  only  hides  but 
crushes.  It  was  all  in  vain.  If  I  was  content  with  my  “  epithets,”  he  said,  he  was  content 
with  his  “facts” — and  by  this  bold  but  desperate  course,  Mr.  Brooks  must  have  flattered 
himself  that  he  should  carry  a  large  portion  of  the  public  with  him,  or  at  all  events,  that 
he  should  so  befog  the  question  as  to  enable  him  to  escape  detection  and  exposure.  That 
mass  of  “public  opinion,”  so  called,  which  has  been  gathered  from  various  newspapers 
into  the  columns  of  the  Express,  shows  that  for  a  brief  period  Mr.  Brooks  succeeded  in 
his  purpose.  But  should  he  ever  enter  on  a  controversy  again,  let  him  not  forget  the 
motto  prefixed  to  this  letter,  in  which  the  great  Dutch  philosopher  proclaims  an  important 
principle,  namely,  “Light  the  mother  of  Truth,  will  not  permit  deception  to  enjoy  a  long 
reign.” 

Before  closing  this  communication,  I  must  be  allowed  to  say  a  few'  words  in  reference  to 
the  style  of  vituperation  employed  towards  me  by  those  editors  whose  adverse  opinions 
have  been  garnered  in  the  columns  of  the  Express.  They  hold  it  as  an  impertinence  for 
a  foreigner  like  myself  to  venture  on  any  criticism  of  the  language  which  a  native  bom 
American  Senator  may  think  proper  to  employ  to  his  prejudice.  They  have  endorsed  the 
career  and  position  of  Mr.  Brooks  in  reference  to  the  issue  of  the  late  controversy,  and  in 
opposition  to  facts  and  truths.  I  hold  their  opinions,  therefore  at  a  very  low  estimate. 
Nevertheless,  I  must  tell  them  that  I  am  not  a  foreigner.  I  renounced  foreignism  on  oath, 
nearly  forty  years  ago.  I  have  from  the  proper  court  a  certificate  of  political  and  civil 
birthright,  as  an  American  citizen  ;  and  I  am  not  disposed  to  relinquish  one  jot  of  the 
privileges  to  which,  on  the  faith  of  the  country,  it  entitles  me.  But  if  I  renounced 
foreignism,  I  did  not  renounce  humanity.  And  whilst  I  hold  myself  to  be  as  true  and 
loyal  an  American  as  ever  claimed  the  protection  of  the  national  flag,  I  would  not  ex¬ 
change  the  bright  memories  of  my  earlier  boyhood,  in  another  land  and  beneath  a  different 
sky,  for  those  of  any  other  man  living,  no  matter  where  he  was  born.  These  editors  who 
fabricate  public  opinion  for  the  New  York  Express  say  that  I  am  not  an  American  ;  but 
they  are  mistaken.  If  principles  and  feelings  which  are  theorized,  though  perhaps,  not 
always  realized,  in  our  system  of  free  government,  constitute  an  American,  they  were 
mine  from  earliest  memory.  They  were  innate — they  were  inherited — they  were  a  portion 
of  my  nature.  I  could  not  eliminate  them  from  the  moral  constitution  of  my  nature  and 
being,  even  if  I  would.  In  this  sense,  I  was  an  American  from  birth.  I  revered  justice 
and  truth,  as  it  were  by  instinct.  I  hated  oppression  and  disposed  falsehood.  I  cherished 
both  for  myself,  and  as  far  as  practicable  for  all  mankind,  a  love  for  the  largest  liberty 
compatible  with  private  rights  and  public  order.  Of  course,  then,  when  penal  laws 
enacted  on  account  of  my  religion,  had  rendered  my  native  land  unfit  for  a  life-long 


5 


CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


70 


residence,  unless  I  would  belong  to  a  degraded  class,  America,  according  to  its  professed 
principles,  was  the  country  for  me.  But  I  came  not  merely  to  be  an  inhabitant,  but  a 
citizen  of’ the  United  States.  I  have,  therefore,  been  an  American.  I  am  an  American. 
I  will  be  an  American.  I  shall  be  an  American  in  despite  of  all  the  editors  that  have 
rushed  into  the  New  York  Express,  with  only  half  the  evidence  before  them,  to  record 
judgment  in  favor  of  Senator  Brooks,  and  against  Archbishop  Hughes. 

In  regard  to  the  recent  enactment  of  our  Legislature,  forcing  an  unsolicited  bill  on  the 
Catholics  of  the  State  of  New  York,  out  of  which  the  late  controversy  with  Senator  Brooks 
arose,  it  is  not,  perhaps,  becoming  for  me  to  say  much.  It  is,  I  think,  the  first  statute 
passed  in  the  Legislature  of  New  York  since  the  Revolution,  which  has  for  object  to 
abridge  the  religious  and  encroach  on  the  civil  rights  of  the  members  of  one  specific 
religious  denomination.  Hitherto,  when  any  denomination  of  Christians  in  the  State 
desSed  the  modification  of  its  laws  affecting  church  property,  the  Legislature  waited  for 
their  petitions  to  that  effect — took  the  same  into  consideration,  and  when  there  was  no 
insuperable  objection,  modified  the  laws  so  as  to  accommodate  them  to  the  requirements  of 
the  particular  sect  or  denomination  by  whom  the  petition  had  been  presented.  Thus  the 
law  of  1784’,  though  still  on  the  statute  book,  had  become  practically  antiquated  and 
obsolete.  From  its  odious  and  oftentimes  impracticable  requirements,  the  Episcopalians, 
the  Presbyterians,  the  Methodists,  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church,  the  Quakers,  and  perhaps 
others  besides,  have  at  various  times  solicited  exemption  at  the  hands  of  the  Legislature, 
and  obtained  special  enactments  more  in  accordance  with  their  faith  and  disciplines 
respectively.  Now  this  antiquated  law  is  the  one  which  is  revived,  re-invigorated, 
strengthened  by  provisions  for  contingent  confiscation  of  church  property,  and  forced  upon 
the  Catholics  of  the  State  of  New  York  as  sufliciently  good  for  them.  They  had  not 
petitioned  for  it— they  did  not  desire  it — they  will  not  have  it,  if  they  can  lawfully 
dispense  with  its  enactments. 

I  am  indebted  to  the  kindness  of  a  friend  perfectly  competent  to  form  a  judgment  on 
the  subject,  for  the  following  synopsis  of  the  hardships  provided  for  in  the  different 
sections  of  this  Church  Tenure  bill : — 


1.  It  makes  void  a  deed  of  land,  if  intended  for  religious  worship — that  is  to  say,  it  takes  from  every  man 
(ecclesiastical  or  layman)  the  right  either  to  give  to  any  individual,  or  to  buy  a  lot,  to  devote  it  to  the  highest 
purpose  to  which  it  can  be  devoted — the  adoration  of  the  living  God. 

2.  It  avoids  a  last  will  of  any  real  estate  so  used.  It  thus  makes  it  unlawful  for  any  man  to  leave  such 
property  by  will  to  any  person,  even  his  own  children,  and  this,  notwithstanding  he  may  have  purchased  it 
and  built  a  church  upon  it  with  his  own  money. 

3.  It  attempts  to  affect  lands  held  in  fee  simple  absolute,  with  a  newly  created  trust  in  law,  by  a  usurpa¬ 
tion  of  judicial  functions,  which,  if  tolerated,  would  destroy  the  judiciary,  and  make  the  Legislature  supreme  , 
and  despotic. 

4.  It  would  thus  not  only  impair  the  validity  of  a  vested  title,  in  violation  of  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  but  it  would  deprive  a  man  of  his  property  without  judicial  process,  in  violation  of  our  State  constitu¬ 
tion  and  bill  of  rights. 

5.  By  a  short  summary  sentence  it  would  wrest  from  the  individual,  and  from  his  heirs  and  devisees,  all 
title  to  such  property  on  his  death  (no  matter  how  lawfully  acquired),  declaring  by  a  stretch  of  power  equalled 
only  by  the  assumed  omnipotence  of  parliament,  that  on  his  death  it  shall  vest  in  the  State. 

The  constitution  declares  that  the  entire  and  absolute  property  in  lands  is  vested  in  the  individual  owner, 
subject  only  to  the  law  of  escheat  for  defect  of  heirs.  Yet  here  we  have  a  statute  above  the  constitution— a 
statute  of  confiscation  and  c  f  usurpation.  Moreover,  it  is  the  legislation  of  the  strong  against  the  weak— the 
legislation  of  political  and  religious  animosity,  forcing,  in  the  nineteenth  century,  and  in  this  free  land,  upon 
one  religious  body  a  system  of  church  management  hostile  to  their  church  discipline.  How  many  are  the 
private  rights  hitherto  deemed  sacred  aDd  inalienable,  which  are  stricken  down  by  this  bold  enactment? 
Surely  there  is  matter  in  this  act  to  make  thinking  men  pause,  and  wonder  that  the  transition  from  unre¬ 
stricted  freedom  to  absolute  despotism  is  so  easy  and  so  rapid.  • 


Suck  is  a  synopsis  of  the  effects  contemplated  by  what  is  called  the  Church  Tenure  bill. 
And  the  reader  who  has  had  the  patience  to  peruse  the  whole  of  this  communication,  will 
have  seen  by  what  means  it  was  introduced,  and  by  what  means  its  enactment  has  been 
accomplished. 

f  JOHN,  Archbishop  of  New  York. 

New  York,  May  14,  1855. 


THE  FACTS— THE  EVIDENCE— THE  RECORD,  AND  THE  LAW. 

To  the  Editors  of  the  Courier  and  Enquirer: 

My  statements  in  the  Senate  of  New  York,  which  the  Archbishop  has,  so  many 
times,  and  in  so  many  ways  “  branded  ”  as  “  falsehoods,”  were  as  follows : 

“  I  have  taken  occasion  during  a  visit  of  a  day  in  New  York,  to  secure  references,  taken  from  the  Register’s 
office  there,  of  the  amount  of  property  held  by  John  Hughes  in  that  city.  1  sitpose  its  value  to  be  in  New 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN.  71 


York  alone,  not  much  short  of  Jive  millions  of  dollars.  So  far  from  this  property  being  held,  when  in 
Churches,  by  Trustees,  there  are  numerous  transfers  from  Trustees  to  John  Hughes  I  Beginning  with 
February,  1S42,  and  continuing  through  1S54,  A  friend  of  mine  copied  fifty-eight  entries  of  as  many  dis¬ 
tinct  parcels  of  property  made  in  the  name  of  and  for  John  Hughes ,  all  in  the  space  of  twelve  years ! 
— not  to  John  Hughes,  Bishop,  nor  to  John  Hughes,  Archbishop,  nor  to  John  Hughes,  as  Trustee  for  the 
great  Roman  Catholic  Church,  but  to  plain  John  Hughes,  in  his  own  propria,  persona.  Some  of  these  par¬ 
cels  of  property  cover  whole  squares  of  land,  and  nearly  all  of  them  are  of  great  value.  The  rule  of  that 
ohurch  is  never  to  part  with  property,  and  to  receive  all  that  can  be  purchased.  What  is  true  of  New  York 
city  is  true  of  the  State,  and  fifteen  or  twenty  cases  of  property  assigned  to  Bishop  John  Timon,  were  named 
by  the  Senator  from  Monroe. 

“  [To  those  who  were  curious  in  such  matters,  Mr.  Brooks  exhibited  copies  of  the  number,  book,  and  page 
of  these  several  entries  in  the  city  of  New  York  in  behalf  of  John  Hughes.]” 

The  Archbishop  has  never  once  quoted  the  first  paragraph  fully,  and  he  has  more  than 
once  misquoted  it,  and  with  a  coolness  that  has  astonished  the  intelligent  readers  of  our 
joint  correspondence.  He  has  taken  pains  to  omit  the  words  “  I  suppose  its  value  to  be,” 
&c.,  “  a  friend  of  mine  copied,”  &c.,  and  to  change  the  word  “  Property  ”  in  regard  to 
Leases,  to  the  words  Real  Estate.  I  carefully  and  designedly  used  all  these  words — 
‘•'suppose,”  “a  friend  of  mine,”  and  “Property.”  The  one  statement  was  a  belief 
founded  upon  the  information,  furnished  by  a  friend,  and  the  other  was  the  use  of  the 
word  Property  in  order  that  there  should  be  no  opportunity  of  using  even  a  technicality 
against  me.  The  law  held  a  lease  for  three  years  to  be  Property,  and  common  sense  holds 
a  lease  for  999  years,  at  one  cent  a  year,  to  be  Property  held  on  terms  equal  to  a  fee 
simple  possession.  But  even  the  idea  of  calling  it  Property  at  all  the  Archbishop  has  said 
in  his  letter  of  April  21,  is — 

“  Radicalism  and  Fourierism  suck  as  has  not  been  put  forth  before.” 

In  regard  to  “  the  number,  book,  and  page  of  the  several  entries  in  the  city  of  New 
York,”  I  have  them  before  ' me  now,  as  they  were  presented  by  me  to  the  Senate,  in 
March  last,  and  they  can  be  seen  by  the  Archbishop,  or  by  any  of  his  friends,  as  a  part  of 
the  notes,  from  which  I  then  addressed  the  Senate. 

There  has  been  so  much  equivocation  in  the  Archbishop’s  letters,  thus  far,  that  I  design 
in  this  letter  to  place  him  on  record  against  himself.  I  mean  to  prove,  in  the  first  place, 
that,  in  this  country,  it  is  a  part  of  his  creed  for  the  Archbishops  and  Bishops  to  own  and 
control  the  temporalities  of  the  Church,  including  not  only  the  Churches  proper,  but  all 
other  ecclesiastical  property,  acquired  by  gift,  acts  of  fidelity,  lease,  purchase,  or  other¬ 
wise,  except  when,  by  writing,  it  has  been  confined  to  some  Order  of  Monks  or 
congregation  of  Priests  for  their  own  use. 

I  mean  to  show  that  the  Council  of  Bishops,  convened  at  Baltimore,  in  1852,  forbid  the 
interference  of  the  Laity  in  any  Church  matters,  except  as  they  were  directed  by  the 
Bishops. 

I  mean  to  prove  that  not  only  the  Baltimore  Ordinance  of  1852,  especially  sets  the 
State  power  at  naught,  if  interposed  against  the  Authority  of  this  Council  of  Bishops,  but 
‘  that- Archbishop  Plughes  himself  has  issued  an  official  Circular  Letter,  in  direct  opposi¬ 
tion  to  the  State  Law  of  1784,  providing  for  the  Incorporation  of  Religious  Societies, 
which  law,  in  spirit  or  in  letter,  has  been  upon  the  Statute  Book,  from  that  time  to  the 
present. 

I  mean  to  show  that  the  Archbishop  is  preparing  to  evade  or  avoid  the  Church 
Property  Law  of  this  State,  and  to  concentrate  the  entire  temporalities  of  the  Church, 
equally  with  its  spiritualities,  in  the  hands  of  the  one  “Archbishop,”  and  the  “eight 
Suffragan  Bishops,”  over  whom,  with  “  close  upon  five  hundred  Priests,  and  near  one 
million  of  Catholics,’’'’  he  assumes  authority  in  what  he  is  pleased  to  call  “  the  Ecclesias¬ 
tical  Province  of  JVew  York.” 

I  mean  to  show  that  there  has  been  the  widest  contradiction  of  statement  by  the  Arch¬ 
bishop,  in  his  different  published  letters,  in  regard  to  the  same  facts.  Read  and  judge. 

I  put  his  “titles,”  “investments,”  “fee  simples,”  “Real  Estate,”  and  boasted  pomp  and 
power,  side  by  side,  with  his  Records  of  Property,  and  his  avowals  that  he  owns  nothing 
but  “the  bed  upon  which  he  sleeps,”  “a  part  of  his  furniture,”  and  “his  library.” 

The  alternate  denials  and  admissions  of  ownership  and  non-ownership  of  property  on  the 
part  of  the  Archbishop  have  puzzled  the  public  not  a  little,  as  well  as  the  alternate 
avowals  of  Poverty  and  Riches.  I  find  an  explanation  of  this  double-dealing  where  I 
would  be  glad  to  know  that  none  existed,  in  a  book  on  Church  Property,  as  well  as  other 
matters,  known  as  the  “  Secreta  Monita  Societatis  Jesu,"  where  it  is  enjoined — in 
Chapter  1,  Section  8 — “  in  every  Province  to  let  none  but  the  Provincial  (or  Principal)  be 
fully  apprised  of  the  real  value  of  our  revenues,  and  let  what  is  contained  in  the  treasury 
of  Rome  be  kept  as  an  inviolable  secret.” 

And  now  let  me  address  myself  to  you,  my  amiable  antagonist,  with  a  little  more  direct¬ 
ness  of  purpose. 

I  have  quoted  the  Revised  Statutes  to  show  that  leases  for  a  very  limited  period  are  pro- 


CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


perty.  &nd  that  you,  the  Archbishop,  are  recorded  as  the  owner  of  such  leases.  You  cannot, 
by  a  quibble,  equivocation,  or  any  sort  of  evasion,  get  over  this  fact  any  more  than  you 
can  get  rid  of  such  a  “wretched  and  vile  insect"  as  myself,  by  the  mere  volition  of 
casting  him,  “with  covered  hands,”  from  your  upper  window  upon  the  pavement  below. 
Amiable  man— your  power  is  not  equal  to  your  will,  and  you  will  have  to  address  the 
public,  myself,  or  somebody  else,  many  times,  before  this  Church  Property  Controversy  is 
closed.  I  am  not  boastful,  I  hope,  but  in  a  war  thus  forced  upon  me.  my  motto  is  that  of 
Old  Grip  (rather  a  large  “  insect,’’  perhaps) — the  Raven  of  poor  Barnaby  Rudge,  when  he 
cried — ••  JVevcr  say  die.”  The  cause  I  represent,  you  will  have  to  consider  both  with 
clean  and  covered  hands  before  the  end. 

“  You  little  thought  that  day  of  pain, 

When  launched  as  on  the  lightning’s  flash, 

You  bade  me  to  destruction  dash. 

That  one  day  I  should  come  again.  *  * 

But  time  at  last  sets  all  things  even  ; 

And  if  we  do  but  watch  the  hour, 

There  never  yet  was  human  power 
Which  could  evade,  if  unforgiven, 

The  patient  search  and  vigil  long 
Of  him  who  treasures  up  a  wrong.” 

Personally,  however,  I  bear  no  malice  towards  you,  my  antagonist,  and  from  first  to  last 
I  have  felt  that  you  were  your  own  worst  enemy.  I  have,  on  more  than  one  occasion,  had 
demonstrated  the  fact,  that  there  are  men  of  your  own  faith,  in  this  city,  who,  while  they 
fear  you,  dare  expose  you  to  me,  and' through  me  to  the  public.  And  but  for  anathemas, 
excommunications,  and  persecutions,  through  life  and  death — or  where  your  will  is  law, 
you  are  alike  merciless  towards  the  dead  and  living — many  of  them  would  relate  their 
own  unvarnished  tales  before  the  public,  and  reveal  a  state  of  fact  and  of  despotic  power 
which  would  shock  the  moral  sense  of  the  whole  community. 

It  was  an  honest  believer  in  the  creed  of  the  Romish  Church  who  went  to  Albany  to  tell 
me  of  your  cruel  and  mercenary  rule  in  regard  to  the  dead,  in  Calvary  Cemetery.  It  was 
a  believer  in  the  same  Church  who  exposed  to  me  the  existence  of  the  property  at  La 
Fargeville,  so  long  occupied  by  one  bearing  your  own  name  and  of  your  own  family.  I 
hear,  too,  of  your  recorded  possessions  all  over  the  Island  and  all  around  it,  and  I  also 
hear  of  them'  far  in  the  interior.  You  have  felt  yourself  so  much  a  man  of  power,  as 
either  to  transcend  the  law  or  to  come  short  of  it,  as  suited  your  convenience. 

All  this  I  have  this  morning  deemed  pertinent  as  preliminary  to  my  rejoinder  to  the 
“  ten  days  or  two  weeks’’  labor  of  yourself,  and  those  “  professional  gentlemen”  whom  you 
have  several  times  announced  as  employed  to  aid  you  in  answering  the  letters  of  “  a  vile 
insect’’  like  myself.  We  shall  see  whether  you  have  made  good  your  promise  to  the  public, 
“  to  prove  Senator  Brooks  a  man  of  falsehood,”  and  “  guilty  of  multiplied,  deliberate,  and 
repeated  falsehoods.”  I  am  no  lawyer,  and  therefore  denied  the  wisdom  taught  by  Black- 
stone.  Coke,  and  Mansfield,  and  the  more  important  advantages  of  measuring  swords  with 
skilful  men  of  the  profession.  But  though  not  bred  to  the  bar,  I  think  I  can  tell  a  hawk 
from  a  handsaw,  and  show  that  a  lease  conveyed  to  John  Hughes  for  999  years,  at  one  cent 
a  year,  is  Property,  and  that  a  legal  conveyance  of  sundry  parcels  of  land  and  other  pos¬ 
sessions  to  the  same  distinguished  person,  is  Property  also. 

Let  me  ask  you,  sir,  if  in  giving  Mortgages,  on  Property,  of  which  you  were,  or  are, 
owner,  if  you  did  so  by  order  of  Court,  as  required  by  the  statute  ;  or  whether  you  acted 
in  regard  to  such  Property,  as  if  it  were  absolutely  your  own  ?  If  you  have  not  conformed 
to  the  order  of  the  Court,  and  there  is  no  evidence  that  you  have  done  so,  then  even  in 
regard  to  this  Property  there  is  abundant  evidence  that  you  have  used  your  own  name  for 
property  which  belonged  to  Trustees.  Worse  than  this  even.  You  have  conveyed  Pro¬ 
perty  to  Bishops  personally,  which  stood  recorded  as  belonging  to  Trustees,  and  yon  have 
also  conveyed  Property  to  the  Bishops,  personally,  which  you  have  also  declared  “belonged 
to  the  Catholic  People  of  the  Diocese.”  If  those  “middle  men.”  the  “laity”  of  your 
Church,  whom  you  speak  of  so  contemptuously,  in  the  pulpit  and  out  of  it,  as  unfit  to 
govern  the  Temporalities  of  the  Church,  were  to  take  you  in  hand,  they  would  make  you 
amenable  to  the  laws  of  the  State,  if  not  to  that  Sovereign  of  “  the  State  of  the  Church,"  to 
whom  you  owe  your  highest  allegiance,  and  whom  you  so  recently  visited  in  all  the  pride 
and  pomp  of  state  at  his  Imperial  Palace. 

Indeed,  I  rejoice  that  you,  as  my  opponent,  have  invoked  the  aid  of  counsel,  as  a  careful 
reference  to  their  statements  will  confirm  the  material  portions  of  my  own  record  in 
regard  to  conveyances  of  Property  to  John  Hughes.  The  principle  embodied  in  my 
speech  as  to  the  ownership  of  Property  in  you,  is  over  and  over  again  admitted,  and  yet 
you  persist  I  see  in  the  same  clerical  temperament  and  language  as  in  previous  epistles. 
It  was  not  enough  to  “  brand”  me  scores  of  times  as  guilty  of  “  falsehoods”  in  your  pre- 
i  vious  letters,  but  in  this,  your  last  card,  your  usual  flowers  of  rhetoric  adorn  the  whole 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN. 


73 


garden  which  you  have  planted  and  watered  during  nearly-two  weeks  of  very  careful  labor. 
Prose  and  poetry  are  both  invoked  to  impeach  my  veracity.  I  am  treated  with  epithets 
like  the  following  : — 

“ Self-degraded  and  self-mined  mam." 

“  Primary  and  secondary  falsehoods." 

“  Tortuous  career  of  mendacity .” 

“  Bold  career  of  falsehood.  ’ 

“An  expert  in  every  department  of  falsehood." 

“  Numerous  deliberate  and  wicked,  falsehoods." 

“  No  species  of  falsehood  unemployed &c.,&c.,  &c. 

“  TVe  can  say  of  him,  but  in  a  different  sense,  what  the  poet  said  of  Sheridan, — he 

*  *  “ ran 

Through  each  mode  of  the  lyre. 

And  was  matter  of  all.” 

These  are  the  texts  of  one  who  uses  “  the  symbol  of  Christ,”  and  claims  to  be  “  the 
Shepherd  of  Souls.”  And  not  content  with  assailing  me  personally,  you  assail  the  Ameri¬ 
can  Press,  mind  and  people,  in  style  and  epithet  most  offensive  to  them,  and  to  the  coun¬ 
try. 

Now  let  me  in  perfect  equanimity  review  your  very  long  labor,  and  see  where  you 
stand.  I  intend  to  condemn  you,  not  by  epithets,  but  by  facts,  and  out  of  your  own 
mouth.  I  shall  follow  you  through  all  the  windings  of  your  unfair  and  contradictory  as¬ 
sertions,  and  shall  begin  with  the  statements  signed  by  Messrs.  Glover  &  Wetmore,  which, 
let  me  hope  the  reader  will,  just  here,  again  peruse  in  full.  This  statement  declares  that 
Nos.  9,  16,  18.  and  22,  were  subsequently  reconveyed,  and  that  one  lot,  though  separately 
numbered  on. the  map,  is  the  same,  and  that  a  conveyance,  cited  by  me,  has  expired. 
Granted.  In  what  respect  does  all  this  impugn  ray  veracity  ?  I  had  charged  you,  the 
Archbishop,  with  doing  this  very  thing  in  order  to  show  that  you  were  a  General  Broker 
in  Real  Estate.  I  had  even  published  conspicuously  your  sale  and  conveyance  of  property, 
“  the  property  of  God,”  as  you  called  it,  “  to  the  Harlem  Railroad  Company,”  for  $46,- 
000,  in  January,  1853,  and  recorded  in  April  of  the  same  year  [lib.  616,  p.  640.] 

More  than  this.  Unused  to  the  skillful  examination  of  legal  papers,  I  did  not  even  trust 
myself  to  investigate  the  Records.  A  gentleman  in  good  practice  at  the  bar,  and  of  high 
legal  and  moral  standing  in  society,  performed  this  service  for  me,  and  gave  me  authority 
for  what  I  stated  in  the  Senate,  and  an  exact  copy  of  all  the  city  records  I  have  published 
conveying  property  to  John  Hughes.  I  knew  with  whom  I  was  dealing  when  I  thus  re¬ 
lied  upon  truthful  and  competent  gentlemen  to  search  the  records. 

I  now  propose  to  give  from  gentlemen,  and  legal  gentlemen,  too,  of  undoubted  veracity, 
a  thorough  endorsement  of  the  spirit  and  substance  of  all  I  said  in  the  Senate,  and  of  all 
I  have  written  since  touching  the  Conveyances  of  Property  to  John  Hughes.  Here  are 
my  witnesses : 

LETTER  FROM  MORTIMER  DE  MOTTE,  ESQ. 

237  Broadway,  New  York,  ) 

16th  May,  1S55.  ) 

Hon.  Erastds  Brooks. 

Dear  Sir  : — In  reply  to  your  note  of  this  date,  I  would  state  that  the  memorandum  of  the  property  held 
in  the  name  of  John  Hughes,  stating  the  book  and  page  of  the  several  entries,  as  stated  by  you  in  the  Sen¬ 
ate,  was  the  result  of  my  own  personal  examination  of  the  book  in  the  Register’s  Office  of,  and  containing 
the  names  of  the  grantees  of  real  estate  in  this  city.  It  was  my  original  design  to  procure  not  only  a  full 
list  of  the  conveyances  to,  but  description  and  value  of  the  property,  the  title  to  which  was  vested  in  John 
Hughes,  but  my  engagements  would  not  permit,  and  lienee  simply  the  memorandum  of  the  book  and  page  re¬ 
cording  such  conveyances.  Whatever  inaccuracies  there  were  in  that  memorandum,  as  to  the  number  of  the 
conveyances,  if  any,  are  attributable  to  me  alone,  and  arose  from  want  of  time,  in  which  to  identify  the 
grantee  as  the  Rev.  John  Hughes,  Archbishop  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  New  York. 

The  result,  however,  shows  the  memorandum  given  by  me  to  you  to  be  correct,  as  to  the  number  of  convey¬ 
ances  made  to  the  Archbishop,  with  a  trifling  diminution,  and  the  number  of  conveyances  to  him,  vesting  in 
him  absolutely  the  title  in  fee  simple,  fully  establishes  tire  principle  asserted  by  you. 

In  this  connection  I  would  say  that  I  regard  the.  Church  Property  Bill  as  one  of  the  most  important  acts 
ever  passed  by  our  State  Legislature.  The  rapid  and  constant  accumulation  of  property  by  the  Prelates  of 
the  Romish  Church,  to  descend  and  be  added  to  by  them  in  perpetual  succession,  would,  in  the  first  place, 
carry  into  operation  the  principle  of  entailment,  wisely  forbidden  by  our  National  Constitution,  and,  in  the 
next  place,  would  in  time  concentrate  in  them  an  amount  of  property  and  power  which  would  render  them 
formidable  adversaries  to  cope  with. 

With  this  communication,  in  compliance  with  your  further  request,  I  send  you  the  statement_of  Mr.  Hanson 
C.  Gibson,  a  young  man  of  character  and  intelligence, — a  student  in  our  office,  to  whom  I  entrusted  the  ex¬ 
amination  of  the  records  from  the  memorandum  prepared  by  me  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  a  description 
of  the  parcels  mentioned  in  said  conveyances. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 


MORTIMER  DE  MOTTE. 


74 


CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


LETTER  FROM  H.  C.  GIBSON,  ESQ. 

16th  Mat,  1S55. 

Hon.  Erastcs  Brooks  : 

Dear  Sir— In  pursuance  of  your  request,  through  Mortimer  De  Motte,  Esq.,  I  hereby  state  and  certify 
that  I  received  a  memorandum  containing  minutes  of  records  of  conveyances,  and  at  his  request  tvent  to  the 
office  of  the  Register  in  and  for  the  City  and  County  of  New  York,  and  examined  the  books  of  conveyances, 
and  took  therefrom  the  descriptions  of  property,  which  have  been  published  in  your  paper;  and  I  further 
state  and  certify  that  the  extracts  taken  by  me  from  such  records  are  true  copies  of  the  same,  to  the  best  of 
my  knowledge  and  belief.  Your  ob’t  servant, 

H.  C.  GIBSON. 


Let  me  now  come  to  analysis  : 

[From  his  letter  of  May  15.] 

1.  Mr.  Brooks  has  falsified  the  record,  by  styling 
Bartholomew  O’Conner  “  Trustee  to  Christ  Church.” 

Messrs.  Glover  and  Wetmore  say: — “This  deed 
cites  a  conveyance  by  the  Trustees  of  Christ  Church 
to  Bartholomew  O’Conner.” 

Isn't  this  a  beautiful  distinction  upon  which  to  hang  such  a  charge  as  “ falsified  the 
records  /” 


[From  the  Archbishop’s  2d  letter,  April  19.]  , 

1.  “  Mr.  Bartholomew  O’Conner  in  that  case  was 
only  the  Assignee  of  a  Bankrupt  Board  of  Trus¬ 
tees." 


2.  See  Mr.  Brooks’s  record  of  conveyance,  April 
23d,  for  answer  to  this  charge. 


3.  This  is  the  property  of  which  I  gave  the  entire 
history  as  given  by  the  city,  in  1S46,  and  received 
by  the  President  John  Hughes  and  his  Secretary. 

4.  One  of  these  four  relate  to  the  Transfiguration 
Church,  which  see  April  23 — another  to  half  a  burial 
lot — the  3d  is  first  of  a  lease  and  second  of  a  con¬ 
veyance,  and  Nos.  14  and  15  of  Records  will  show 
that  the  conveyance  of  one  party  was  June  19th, 
the  other  April  1st,  1S4S — and  that  the  lots  are  en¬ 
tered  as  six  in  one  case  and  one  fifth  part  in  anoth¬ 
er. 


2.  He  falsely  cited  the  deed  from  the  Trustees  of 
Transfiguration  Church,  executed  in  1S51 — the  false¬ 
hood  consisted  in  suppressing  what  appears  upon 
the  face  of  that  deed,  that  it  was  simply  in  confirm¬ 
ation  of  a  title  previously  vested  in  the  Archbishop. 

8.  He  intentionally  falsifies  when  he  declares 
that  the  deed  of  Michael  Curran  conveyed  “  a  square 
of  land.” 

4.  lie  wilftUly  counts  the  following  (four)  premi¬ 
ses  twice. 


This  is  what  is  called  “  a  wilful  falsehood.” 

So  in  regard  to  the  vault  under  the  deed  from  Patten,  I  am  assured  to-day,  from  one  who 
knows  what  the  facts  are,  that  there  were  two  conveyances  as  stated,  two  parties  being 
owners. 

Below,  also,  is  something  inexplicable,  and  which  needs  explanation  from  the  “  Report 
of  Counsel.” 

“  No.  III.  is  between  the  same  parties,  and  for  the  same  premises  mentioned  in  No.  VII. 

“  No.  VII.  is  the  same  as  No.  III.,  as  above  stated.” 

No.  3  is  the  same  as  No.  7,  and  No.  7  is  the  same  as  No.  3 !  There  is  something  wrong 
here. 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN.  75 


And  now  let  us  go  back  a  little  and  leave  words  for  facts,  and  mere  statements  for 
recorded  truth.  It  is  with  no  pleasure  that  I  place  the  Archbishop  on  record  against  him¬ 
self,  although  I  should  be  warranted  in  using  any  language,  becoming  a  Christian  and  a 
gentleman,  after  the  assaults  he  has  made  upon  me.  Here  are  the  records  : 


CLAIM  TO  CHDRCII  AND  ALL  OTHER  ECCLESIASTICAL  PROPERTY. 


LOOK  ON  THIS  PICTURE. 

From  the  7th  Provincial  Meeting  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Council  of  Bishops,  held  in  Baltimore. — 
Decree  of  1349. 

“  The  Fathers  ordain,  that  all  Churches,  and  all 
other  Ecclesiastical  property,  which  have  been  ac¬ 
quired  by  donations  or  acts  of  the  faithful,  for  reli¬ 
gious  or  charitable  use,  belong  to  the  Bishop  of  the 
diocese  ;  unless  it  shall  be  made  to  appear,  and  be 
confirmed  by  writings,  that  it  was  granted  to  some 
religious  order  of  monks,  or  to  some  congregation  of 
priests  for  their  use.” 


DECREE  OF  A  SIMILAR  COUNCIL,  HELD  IN  1852. 

“  We  strictly  forbid  the  interference  of  laymen 
{laid)  in  the  administration  of  those  things  without 
the  free  consent  of  Bishops  (Episcopalii).  Hence, 
when  not  called  to  this  by  the  Bishop,  they  usurp 
the  powers  to  use  this  property  or  in  any  manner 
frustrate  or  defraud  the  will  of  the  donors,  or  if  they 
try  to  wrest  from  the  Bishop’s  hands,  the  things 
committed  to  his  trust  and  care,  even  by  means  of 
the  State,  we  define  and  declare  they  fall  ipso  facto, 
under  the  punishment  inflicted  by  the  Fathers  of  the 
Council  of  Trent.  (Ses.  23,  chapter  11,  De  Refor- 
matione)  on  the  usurpers  of  ecclesiastical  property.” 

The  section  above  referred  to  from  the 

COUNCIL  OF  TRENT, 

Anathematizes  Emperors,  Kings,  and  all  persons, 
clerical  and  laical,  who  do  not  concentrate  all  church 
property  in  the  head  of  the  church.  Rents,  rights, 
even  those  held  in  fee  and  under  leases  are  included 
with  all  fruits,  emoluments  or  sources  of  reward. 


From  Archbishop  Hughes’  Circular  Letter,  March 
16, 1852. 

“  The  Catholic  Bishops  of  New  York,  Albany  and 
Buffalo,  ARE  NOW  OWNERS  IN  FEE  SIMPLE  of 
nearly  all  religious  and  charitable  property  exist¬ 
ing  within  their  respective  Ecclesiastical  jurisdic¬ 
tions.” 


From  the  Archbishop’s  Pastoral  Letter. 

“It  has  been  ordained  as  a  statute  of  the  Diocese, 
that  no  Board  of  Trustees  shall  be  at  liberty  to  vote, 
expend  or  appropriate  for  contracts,  or  under  any 
pretext,  any  portion  of  the  property  which  they  are 
appointed  to  administer  (except  the  current  expenses 
as  before  alluded  to)  without  the  express  approval 
and  approbation  of  the  Pastor  in  every  case  ;  and 
it  is  further  ordained  that  even  the  Trustees  of  the 
churches,  with  the  approbation  of  the  Pastor,  shall 
not  be  at  liberty  to  expend  an  amount  larger  than 
the  sum  of  one  hundred  dollars  in  any  one  year, 
without  the  consent  of  the  Bishop ,  approving  or  per¬ 
mitting  such  expenditure.” 

confirmation  of  the  above  by  archbishop  hughes 

HIMSELF. 

“It  has  been  the  practice,  especially  since  the 
bankruptcy  of  no  less  than  four  boards  of  Catholic 
trustees,  to  invest  the  titles  of  new  churches  in 
the  Bishop.”— [Letter  of  April  28th. 

“ Nothing  less  than  coercion  will  induce  the  Ca¬ 
tholics  to  discontinue  or  withdraw  the  confidence 
which  they  have  in  the  Bishops  as  the  natural  guard¬ 
ians  of  such  property.” — [Same  letter. 

“The  title  of  their  church  lots  was  vested  nomi¬ 
nally  in  the  Bishop.” — [Letter  of  May  14th. 


AND  ON  THIS. 


“  I  am  the  owner  of  a  library  which  would  be  of 
little  use  to  many  of  those  who  take  an  interest  in 
the  question  of  my  property,  but  which  to  me  is  very 
valuable.” — [Letter  of  April  28. 


“  I  am  the  owner  of  a  part  of  the  furniture  of  the 
house  in  which  I  live— but  only  a  part.” — [Same 
date. 


“It  appears  to  be  a  foregone  conclusion,  in  the 
minds  of  the  framers,  that  the  law  (Church  Property) 
will  accomplish  in  practice  the  results  which  are  out¬ 
lined  in  its  theory.  This  is  not  so  certain.  Profes¬ 
sional  gentlemen  may  discover  some  defect  in  the 
framing  and  wording  of  the  enactment  which  will 
render  it  inapplicable.”  —  [Letter  of  Archbishop 
Hughes  against  the  Church  Property  Act. 


BOAST  OF  POWER  IN  NEW  YORK,  BY  ARCHBISHOP 
HUGHES. 

“We  have,  gentlemen,  been  anxious,  for  a  long 
period  of  time,  to  establish  among  us  the  Society  of 
the  Propagation  of  the  Faith  ;  but  the  circumstances 
in  which  we  find  ourselves  have  precluded  us  from 
so  doing  in  every  diocese.  The  Priests  of  the  Coun¬ 
cil  of  New  York  have  resolved  to  take  immediate 
measures  to  propagate  it  throughout  their  diocese, 
and  they  hasten  to  communicate  to  you  this  resolu¬ 
tion,  unanimously  adopted  at  their  first  session. 
*  *  *  (jod  forbid  that  we  should  be  discouraged ! 


76  CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


“  In  reference  to  my  ownership  of  Keal  Estate  pro¬ 
perty,  as  Mr.  Brooks  calls  it,  there  is  no  question. 
The  title  of  many  Catholic  churches  in  the  City  of 
New  York  is  vested  in  me,  and,  so  far,  I  am  the 
owner.  My  intention,  even,  fs  to  add  to  this  proper¬ 
ty  by  purchasing  such  additional  lots,  or  accepting 
the  gift  of  them,  as  I  may  find,  from  time  to  time,  to 
be  desirable  for  the  purposes  of  providing  religious 
instruction  for  the  wants  of  the  Catholic  Church 
committed  to  my  charge.  If  Mr.  Brooks  will  examine 
the  records  of  the  City  of  New  York,  three  months 
from  this  time,  he  will  probably  find  conveyances 
made  to  me  by  parties  who  have  the  right  to  sell  or 
bestow,  as  they  think  proper.” — [Letter  of  April  19. 

“  So,  also,  when  new  lots  were  purchased  for  the 
erection  of  new  churches,  required  by  the  increasing 
numbers  of  the  faithful,  the  deed  was  made  out  in 
the  Bishop's  name.” — [Letter  of  May  14th. 


CHARGES  OF  FALSEHOOD. 

“  I  have  never  received  or  accepted  any  transfers 
of  any  property  whatever  from  trustees.  In  this 
particular,  Mr.  Brooks  allowed  himself  to  be  de¬ 
ceived,  and  contributed  his  share  towards  the  decep¬ 
tion  of  his  fellow  Senators  and  the  public.” — [The 
Archbishop’s  first  letter,  promising  “  the  Erastus 
Brooks  Library.” 

“  The  matter  is  reduced  at  present  to  a  question 
of  veracity,  and  it  is  for  Mr.  Brooks  to  prove  his  as¬ 
sertion,  or  occupy  the  position  which  his  failure  to 
do  so  has  in  reserve  for  him.” — [Same  letter. 

“  Mr.  Brooks  has  done  nothing  as  yet  by  way  of 
attempt  to  sustain  this  falsehood.  He  has  not  shown 
one  single  such  transfer  ”  [of  property  from  trustees]. 
— [Letter  of  April  19th. 

“  I  have  always  denied  that  I  ever  asked,  sought, 
received,  or  accepted  any  property  from  lay  trustees. 
This  denial  I  repeat  to-day,  with  increased  empha¬ 
sis.” — [Fifth  letter. 


Immaculate  Mary  is  our  potent  and  glorious  protec¬ 
tress,  and  the  already  increased  extension  of  Catho¬ 
licity  among  us  is  a  pledge  of  the  merciful  views  of 
God  towards  our  Church. 

“  Thirty  years  ago,  throughout  the  vast  territory 
constituting  at  present  the  Ecclesiastical  province 
of  New  York,  there  were  only  two  Bishops,  eleven 
Priests,  and  about  forty  thousand  Catholics.  At  the 
present  time,  we  have  an  Archbishop,  with  eight 
Suffragan  Bishops,  and  close  upon  five  hundred 
priests,  and  near  one  million  of  Catholics.”— [Letter 
written  in  the  name  of  the  first  Provincial  Council 
of  New  York,  to  Messrs,  the  members  of  the  Coun¬ 
cils  of  the  Propagation  of  the  Faith,  dated  New 
YTork,  Oct.  9, 1854. 

PLEA  OF  POVERTY. 

“But  I  am  not  the  owner  of  one  square  inch  of 
ground  within  the  city  of  New  York.  I  am  the 
owner  of  the  bed  I  sleep  on,  but  not  the  roof,  or  the 
walls  that  protect  me  against  the  inclemency  of  the 
season.” — [Letter  of  April  28. 

“  As  representative  of  the  diocese,  I  am  person¬ 
ally  indebted  to  the  amount  of  thirty  thousand  dol¬ 
lars.  But,  by  way  of  assets,  I  have  in  my  personal 
right  an  amount  of  property  which,  I  suppose,  if  its 
value  could  be  realized,  could  cover  the  debt.” — 
[Same  date. 

“  I  am  left  the  owner  of  my  library  and  a  part  of 
the  furniture  of  my  dwelling.” — [Same  date. 

PROOFS  OF  FACT. 

Trustees  of  St.  John’s  Roman  Catholic  Church  to 
John  Hughes.  Lease  dated  July  17,1844.  999  years. 
Consideration,  one  cent  a  year.  Recorded  liber  451, 
page  449,  July  20th,  1S44.  Three  lots  of  land  in  16tli 
Ward,  100  by  75  feet. 


CONFESSION  OF  JUDGMENT. 

“  Mr.  Bartholomew  O’Connor,  who  became  legal 
assignee  of  one  of  our  Bankrupt  Boards  of  Lay 
Trustees,  and  who  transferred  it  according  to  law, 
and  entirely  in  his  civil  capacity  as  an  agent  of  the 
law.” — [Archbishop’s  Letter,  April  21st. 


ANOTHER  CONVEYANCE. 

The  following  is  from  the  books  of  record  in  the 
office  of  the  N.  J.  County  Clerk,  Hudson  County: 

The  Trustees  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  of  St. 
Peter’s,  Jersey  City,  to  the  Right  Rev.  John 
Hughes,  Bishop.  Bate  of  Con,,  A.B.,  1S42,  Nov. 
Sth.  Lease,  999  years.  Consideration,  $1  per  an¬ 
num.  Liber  8,  p.  406. 


The  Trustees  of  St.  Peter’s  Church,  in  New  Brigh 
ton,  Staten  Island,  to  the  Right  Rev.  John  Hughes, 
Bishop  of  New  York,  his  executors,  administrators, 
and  assigns.  Lots  IS,  19,  20,  77,  73,  79,  21,  22,  28, 
SO,  SI,  and  part  of  82.  Leased  for  999  years,  at  the 
yearly  rent  of  two  dimes.  Recorded  lease,  March 
14th,  1S4S.  Lib.  16,  p.  585. 


Nor  have  I  closed  my  record  of  Conveyances  to  you,  John  Hughes.  I  shall  admit 
errors  wherever  they  are  discovered,  and  insist  upon  the  record  wherever  it  is  found.  I 
am  not  so  ambitious  of  proving  a  literal,  technical  fact,  such  as,  to  use  one  of  your  illus¬ 
trations  “  two  and  two  make  four,”  as  I  am  to  prove  the  greater  truth,  that  you  hold 
large  amounts  of  property  in  fee  simple,  that  your  Estates  are  scattered  far  and  wide,  that 
they  are  of  other  kinds  of  property  than  Church  lands  and  edifices.  I  wish  to  show,  that 
you  sell  this  property,  the  Property  of  God,  that  you  deal  in  Bonds  and  Mortgages,  that 
you  speculate  out  of  living  men  and  in  the  dead.  I  wish  to  show  that  while  pleading  the 
poorest  poverty,  and  warring  upon  laymen,  even  of  your  own  faith,  you  are  rich  and  fare 
sumptuously,  that  you  are  proud  and  arrogant,  abusive  and  insulting,  to  all  those  who 
dare  speak  the  truth  of  you  and  yours.  I  wish  to  show  the  necessity  of  passing  such  a 
Church  Property  Law,  as  the  Legislature  has  enacted,  when  any  Prelate  of  any  denomina¬ 
tion,  undertakes  to  control  not  only  millions  of  Church  Property,  but  to  prevent  his 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN.  77  j 


fellow-citizens  of  the  same  faith  from  administering  its  temporalities.  To  this  end  I  add 
now  the  following  additional  conveyances,  in  the  course  already  numbered,  and  admitting 
the  corrections  I  have  made,  while  they  may  take  from  the  number  58,  in  one  case,  they 
will  far  exceed  that  number  by  the  claims  and  admissions  of  yourself,  as  to  the  ownership 
“  in  fee  simple  ”  of  the  respective  Churches  in  the  Diocese. 

Office,  as  Nos.  541,  542,  543,  544,  and  taken  together 
and  bounded  as  follows,  viz.:  N.  by  centre  line 
between  117th  and  USth  streets ;  IV.  by  a  line  drawn 
parallel  to  4th  avenue  on  E.  side  thereof,  at  the  dis¬ 
tance  of  160  feet  therefrom;  S.  in  front  by  117th  st., 
and  E.  by  a  line  drawn  parallel  to  4th  avenue,  on 
the  E.  side  thereof  at  the  distance  of  260  feet  there¬ 
from,  each  of  said  lots  being  25  feet  in  width  on 
front  and  rear,  about  100  feet  depth  on  each  side.  • 

NUMBER  FORTY-EIGHT. 

John  Mullen  to  John  Hughes.  Conveyance  of  lease. 
Record  in  liber  422,  page  420,  Feb.  23d,  1842.  Con¬ 
sideration,  $5,400 

NUMBER  FORTY-NINE. 

Lispenard  Stewart,  to  John  Hughes.  Date  of  Con¬ 
veyance  March  19, 1855.  Recorded  in  liber  679, 
page  399.  Consideration,  $1. 

Commences  at  a  point  where  a  line  drawn  parallel 
with  7th  avenue,  at  the  distance  of  328  feet  south¬ 
east  therefrom,  would  intersect  a  line  drawn  parallel 
with  31st  street,  at  a  distance  of  148  feet,  6  inches 
N.E.  from  said  31st  street,  running  thence  S.E.  in  a 
line  parallel  with  31st  street  50  feet;  thence  N.E.  on 
a  line  at  right  angles  with  31st  street  11 >-  feet,  and 
thence  N.W.  in  a  straight  line  to  place  of  beginning. 

Now  Sir,  it  amuses  me  to  see  with  what  cool  assurance  you  persist  in  asserting  that  a 
lease  for  999  years  is  not  a  lot,  or  three  lots,  and  not  property,  when  even  your  counsel, 
Messrs.  Glover  and  Wetmore,  admit  the  fact  thus  at  the  start. 

“  REPORT. 

«  No.  1,  is  a  lease  for  999  years,  at  a  nominal  rent,  but  will  be  covenant  on  the  part  of  the  lessee  to  main¬ 
tain  a  Church  according  to  the  rites  and  discipline  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.” 

You  also  strike  out,  No.  13'  and  number  14,  because  they  are  parts  of  lots,  and  No. 
12  because  it  is  a  strip  of  land,  and  Nos.  7,  8,  9,  10,  and  12  because  they  have  been  con¬ 
veyed  away  by  you,  as  if  that  interfered  with  the  statement  that  they  had  been  conveyed 
to  you,  as  stated  by  me  in  the  Senate,  since  1842. 

Look  at  this  whole  record, — analyze  it, — turn  it  over  and  over  again  and  again, — and 
see  if,  with  all  the  aid  of  counsel,  you  have  corrected  any  material  fact  or  principle  in  all 
the  cases  furnished  to  me,  and  cited  by  me,  on  the  authority  of  “  professional  gentlemen  ” 
of  skill,  ability,  and  uprightness.  Even  your  “  professional  gentlemen,”  Messrs.  Wetmore 
and  Glover,  say : 

“  We  have  only  to  observe  that  the  respective  deeds  are  numbered  to  correspond  with  the  numbers  used 
by  Senator  Brooks,  and  that  those  which  are  not  noticed  are  correctly  cited  by  him,  except  some  inaccura¬ 
cies  of  references.''1 

And  yet  upon  such  flimsy  pretences  you  deduct  14  from  the  46  conveyances,  and  24 
from  the  101  lots ! ! 

You  also  say : 

“  The  property,  then,  which,  recorded  in  my  name,  is  the  aggregate  of  lots  on  which  fifteen  different  Ca¬ 
tholic  congregations  have  their  places  of  worship,  their  priests’  residences,  and  in  some  instances  their  schools. 
The  number  of  these  lots  is  seventy-seven  (77),  giving  a  fraction  over  five  lots  each  for  the  church  edifices 
of  these  fifteen  congregations.” 

_  Here  you  put  down  15  churches  when  you  know  there  are  nearly  twice  that  number  in  the 
city,  besides  those  in  the  rest  of  your  diocese,  over  which  you  claimed,  even  as  far  back  as 
1852,  a  fee  simple  ownership.  It  is  in  this,  and  other  ways,  you  are  endeavoring  to  con¬ 
vince  the  public  that  you  now  possess  but  $385,000  worth  of  property,  with  two-thirds  of 
this  sum  mortgaged  against  you,  or  $245,000  in  all ! 

Now,  sir,  it  was  only  on  the  28th  of  April  you  wrote,  after  several  days1  delay  and  deli¬ 
beration,  the  following : 


ADDITIONAL  CONVEYANCES  OF  CITY  PRO¬ 
PERTY  TO  JOHN  HUGHES. 

NUMBER  FORTY-SIX. 

Rev.  John  Ryan,  to  John  Hughes.  Date  of  Con. 
April  17th,  1350.  Record  in  liber  546,  page  150, 
May  29th,  1850.  Consideration,  $14,400. 

All  that  certain  piece  or  parcel  of  land,  situate, 
&c.,  in  15th  Ward  in  city  of  New  York,  bounded  and 
described  as  follows :  Beginning  at  a  point  on  the 
southerly  line  of  16th  street,  distant  east  from  cor¬ 
ner  of  16th  street  and  6th  avenue  245  feet,  running 
thence  east  along  the  said  northerly  line  of  16th 
street  90  feet,  thence  south  on  a  line  parallel  with  6th 
avenue  105  feet,  thence  west  on  a  line  parallel  with 
16th  street  90  feet,  thence  north  on  a  line  parallel 
with  6th  avenue  105  feet,  to  the  point  or  place  of 
beginning. 

NUMBER  FORTY-SEVEN. 

Rev.  Philip  G-illick,  Watertown,  N.  Y.,  to  John 
Hughes.  Date  of  Con.  Aug.  19,  1842.  Record  in 
liber  443,  page  194,  Feb.  10th,  1S44.  Consideration, 
$1,665. 

All  those  four  certain  lots  of  ground  situate,  &c., 
in  12th  Ward  of  the  city  of  New  York,  and  known 
and  described  on  a  certain  map  on  file  in  Register’s 


CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 


78 


“  As  representative  of  the  Diocese  I  am  personally  indebted  to  the  amount  of  thirty  thousand  dollars 
But  by  way  of  assets,  I  have  in  my  personal  rights  an  amount  of  property  which  I  suppose,  if  its  value  could 
be  realized,  could  cover  the  debt.” 

Let  the  public  put  these  two  declarations  of  April  28th  and  of  May  15th  together,  and 
behold  the  broad  and  unqualified  contradictions  between  them. 


Declared  indebtness,  April  2S . $  30,000 

Declared  indebtness,  May  15  . .  ...  245,400 

Difference  .  . $215,000 

Declared  Assets,  April  2S .  30,000 

•  Declared  Assets,  May  15  .  139,000 

Difference . - . •  .  $109,000 


Again,  while  you  anathematize  me  as  guilty  of  falsehood,  I  perceive  you  equally  wrong, 
Mr.  Le-Couteulux  when  you  charge  him  with  “  admitting  that  he  told  a  falsehood.”  You 
know  that  as  late  as  April  21,  in  his  very  last  letter  to  you  and  the  public,  and  in  vindi¬ 
cation  of  “  The  Trustees  of  the  Church  of  St.  Louis,”  his  language  was,  “  Our  letters 
are  before  the  public,  and  I  leave  it  to  them  to  decide  which  of  us  two  has  been 
guilty  of  falsehood.”  Equally  groundless  are  your  assaults  upon  Senator  Putnam, 
one  of  the  brightest  ornaments  of  the  State,  and  of  the  Senate.  Upon  the  Church 
Property  Bill  which  he  introduced  and  you  assail,  I  do  not  now  dwell,  nor  upon  your 
harsh  and  bold  attacks  upon  the  American  Press  and  its  editors.  But  let  me  say  with 
Hamlet :  “  After  your  death  you  were  better  have  a  bad  epitaph,  than  their  ill  report 
while  you  live.” 

Of  your  first  letter,  conditionally  promising  the  city  a  Library,  you  now  say : 

“It  was  written  in  a  spirit  of  playfulness  !  ”  m 

Then  you  said : 

“I  pledge  myself  solemnly  there  is  xo  jest  as  to  the  project  of  the  new  Library. 

What  am  I  to  think  of  a  man,  and  an  Archbishop,  too,  who  thus,  like  a  child,  promises 
me  a  boon,  and  when  I  claim  the  pledge,  tells  me,  like  a  child  again,  that  he  was  only 
in  fun ! 

Again,  April  28,  where  you  speak  so  derisively  of  “  Bankrupt  Boards  of  Catholic  Lay 
Trustees,”  and  of  “  irresponsible  lay  trustees,”  you  declare  that  your  “  income  has 
been  derived  from  the  free  and  voluntary  offerings  of  the  flock  committed  to  your  charge.” 
So  I  supposed,  and  that  under  the  rule  which  is  called  Cathedraticum,  each  large  church 
of  your  diocese  paid  $100  per  annum  for  your  support,  and  the  smaller  churches  $50 
per  annum.  But  now  you  tell  us  your  income  comes  from  “  the  Board  of  trustees  of  St. 
Patrick's  Church,”  “  including  Calvary  Cemetery.”  They  it  is,  you  now  say,  “  who  pro¬ 
vide  for  your  decent  maintenance.”  Do  you  not  receive  support  from  more  sources  than 
these  ? 

Heaven  and  earth  knows  there  are  abundant  means  to  provide  “  a  decent  maintenance,” 
from  the  princely  incomes  wrung  from  the  friends  of  the  thousands  of  poor  Germans  and 
Irish,  whose  bones  are  yearly  buried  in  Calvary,  at  the  rate  of  $7  for  one  grave,  eight  or 
nine  feet  long,  two  feet  and  three-quarters  wide,  and  nine  feet  deep,  with  five  bodies 
sometimes  piled  one  top  of  another,  and  seven  dollars  additional  exacted  as  often  as  the 
the  one  piece  of  ground  is  opened,  for  each  body  interred,  besides  ten  dollars  paid  fo*  a 
head-stone,  which  head-stone  alone  can  preserve  the  one  grave  from  the  intrusion  of 
other  bodies!  For  such  a  piece  of  earth  from  $17  to  $45  is  paid.  My  calculations,  the 
other  day,  Roman  Catholics  come  to  inform  me,  were  far  short  of  the  astounding  fact  of 
which  they  complain  to  one  another,  and  some  of  them  in  the  very  bitterness  of  soul.  Nor 
did  I  make  a  duly  large  allowance  for  the  dead,  who  are  thrown,  like  dogs,  into 
trenches,  at  $3  a  head!  The  Potters’  Fields  of  Italy,  where  a  pit  is  opened  and  closed 
every  day  in  the  year,  there  being  365  in  all,  and  in  which  the  dead,  when  ‘stripped,’  are 
offensively  crowded,  like  carcasses  on  a  battle-field,  present  a  scene  hardly  more  revolting. 

But  I  must  close,  and  in  doing  so,  let  me  remember,  kind  and  considerate  Archbishop, 
your  advice  to  one  whom,  two  weeks  since,  you  thrust,  “  with  covered  hands,”  into  the 
street.  You  say : 

“  But,  should  he  (Mr.  Brooks)  ever  enter  on  a  controversy  again,  let  him  not  forget  the  motto  prefixed  to 
this  letter,  in  -which  the  great  Dutch  philosopher  proclaims  an  important  principle,  namely :  ‘  Light  the 
mother  of  truth,  wiU  not  permit  deception  to  enjoy  a  long  reign.’  ” 

Now,  Sir, — by  what  authority  do  you  claim  to  give  me,  whom  you  have  discarded, 
branded,  and  a  hundred  times  pronounced  guilty  of  “  falsehood,”  advice  ?  By  what 


SENATOR  BROOKS  AND  f  JOHN.  79 


authority  also  do  you  speak  iu  so  ex  cathedra  a  manner  to  the  American  Press  and 
People?  Who  made  you,  “  f  John,  Archbishop  of  N.  Y.,  or  of  the  Province  of  New  York.” 
Did  not  your  title  come  from  a  foreign  power, — from  the  Pope  and  King  of  “  the  States 
of  the  Church  ?”  In  the  United  States  of  America,  and  in  the  State  of  New  York,  in 
which  you  bear  yourself  in  so  lordly  a  manner,  freemen  possess  no  titles,  and  acknowledge 
no  human  masters.  We  have  religious  liberty,  <;  without  discrimination  or  preference  ” 
of  sect,  guaranteed  to  us  in  the  Constitution  of  the  State,  and  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States ;  but  the  holding  “  of  any  office,  or  title  of  any  kind  whatever,  from  any 
King,  Prince,  or  Foreign  State,"  without  the  consent  of  Congress,  is  in  violation  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  ! 

Yours  is  a  title  from  a  foreign  power,  and  under  it  you  receive  conveyances,  sell' 
property,  regulate  the  temporalities  of  the  Church,  become  an  Ambassador  to  Rome,  sum¬ 
moned  there  by  the  Pope,  and  owe  more  allegiance  there  than  here. 

I  deny  that  in  any  enlarged,  liberal,  national,  just  sense,  you  are  an  American.  No 
Autocrat  could  be  more  despotic,  and  no  man,  clothed  with  place  and  power,  less. 
Republican. 

Sir,  you  profess  to  be  a  worshipper  of  Truth.  Let  the  God  of  all  truth  judge  between 
us,  our  motives,  our  records,  and  our  acts.  It  is  not  by  what  Grotius  says,  but  by  what 
you  and  I  say  and  do,  that  we  are  to  be  judged  by  men  and  by  the  Judge  of  men.  The 
Spirit  of  Truth,  it  has  been  well  written,  is  the  Spirit  of  Meekness,  and  needs  not  the 
service  of  passion.  I  have  endeavored  to  speak  and  write  the  truth  without  prejudice  or 
passion  ;  and  for  to  day  again  I  leave  my  cause  with  the  public. 

Very  respectfully, 

ERASTUS  BROOKS. 


OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 

It  would  require  another  book  of  the  size  of  this  one  of  the  Controversy,  to  contain  all 
the  matter  adverse  to  the  position  of  f  John,  which  has  been  published  by  the  Press 
throughout  the  country  ;  we  are,  therefore,  obliged  to  omit  the  great  mass  of  editorial 
comments  in  our  possession.  The  following  extracts  form  an  average  reflex  of  the  opi¬ 
nions  set  forth  by  those  terrors  of  the  f  Bishop — the  intellectual  fraternity  of  Editors. 

The  New  York  Journal  op  Commerce,  of  May  18,  devotes  a  column  and  a  fourth  of 
its  great  length  to  a  searching  article  on  the  subject  of  the  Controversy.  The  Journal 
says : 

The  palpable  special  pleading  of  all  of  Archbishop  Hughes’  productions,  contributes  even  more  than  his 
unchristian  bitterness  to  shipwreck  every  cause  that  he  presents  to  the  public.  He  seldom  advances  a  pro¬ 
position  which  is  not  refuted  on  the  page  that  contains  it,  and  he  couples  cajolings  and  sneers  no  oftener 
than  assertions  and  their  opposite.  His  letter  of  the  28th  of  March  last,  on  the  subject  of  Mr.  Putnam’s  Bill, 
was  full  of  contradictory  statements.  The  letter  to  Mr.  Hammond,  disclaiming  partisanship  for  Mr.  Seward, 
was  a  broadcast  electioneering  manifesto  to  Catholics  in  favor  of  that  Senator ;  and  his  productions  in  the 
Brooks’  discussion  teem  with  contradictions.  A  conclusive  proof  of  the  Archbishop’s  insincerity,  is  seen  in 
the  appeal  he  has  made  to  Messrs.  Glover  and  Wetmore’s  Report,  after  having  rejected  the  fair  proposition 
of  Mr.  Brooks,  that  the  matter  under  discussion  should  be  submitted  to  umpires,  one  to  be  chosen  by  each 
of  the  disputants,  and  a  third  by  the  two  individuals  thus  appointed.  He  adopted  the  suggestion  of  appeal¬ 
ing  to  third  persons,  but  chooses  them  all  himself,  and,  in  his  last  letter,  presents  to  the  public  a  certified 
flaw,  discovered  in  an  unessential  part  of  his  opponent’s  evidence,  and  calls  upon  the  community  to  receive 
it  as  proof  that  Mr.  Brooks  is  a  premeditated  liar.  This  is  not  only  dishonest;  it  ipcludes  also  the  assump¬ 
tion  of  utter  imbecility  on  the  part  of  the  public  who  are  to  pass  judgment  upon  the  controversy. 

The  New  York  Observer,  with  its  accustomed  ability,  handles  the  subject  of  the  con¬ 
troversy,  in  its  issue  of  May  17  : 

The  Senator  and  Archbishop. — The  Archbishop,  in  his  controversy  with  Senator  Brooks  has  flatted  out 
in' the  same  style  in  which  he  broke  down  in  his  controversy  some  years  ago  with  Kirwan.  After  again  and 
again  charging  and  declaring  that  he  had  proved  Mr.  Brooks  to  be  guilty  of  falsehood,  and  having  formally 
dismissed  him  as  beiDg  altogether  beneath  his  notice,  he  returns  to  the  charge  by  publishing  a  card,  and 
asking  a  suspension  of  the  public  opinion  for  ten  days  or  a  fortnight,  until  he  shall  have  had  time  to  gather 
the  proofs  of  that  which  he  has  repeatedly  insisted  upon  that  he  has  proved  abundantly.; 

************* 

Senator  Brooks  has  done  great  service  to  the  cause  of  truth  and  justice,  by  drawing  out  the  great  facts 
which  he  has  exhibited  to  the  public,  and  which  he  has  established  by  the  most  irrefragable  proofs.  He  is 
now  in  a  condition  to  compare  his  original  statement  in  the  Senate,  which  the  Archbishop  impugned,  with 


OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 


the  testimony  which  he  has  adduced  in  support  of  it,  and  it  will  be  readily  perceived  that  he  has  more  than 
made  good  this  charge,  which  was  received  with  so  much  astonishment  at  the  time  it  was  put  forth. 

************* 

In  this  controversy,  if  it  were  possible  for  the  Archbishop  to  sink  to  a  lower  depth  than  he  occupied  before, 
he  must  have  found  it  now.  The  language  to  which  he  has  descended  cannot  be  equalled  for  vulgarity  and 
intemperance  in  the  annals  of  respectable  newspaper  discussion,  while  his  facts  have  all  failed  him,  and  the 
opinion  of  the  public,  so  far  as  it  can  be  gathered  from  the  press,  and  conversation,  is  united  in  his  condem¬ 
nation.  We  presume  there  are  very  few  who  now  have  any  confidence  whatever  in  the  representative  of 
Pius  IX  in  the  diocese  of  New  York. 

The  New  York  Evangelist  says : 

The  Archbishop  has  damaged  himself  and  his  cause  irreparably.  In  the  present  instance,  we  are  con¬ 
vinced  that  he  has  made  many  blunders,  from  the  effort  of  which  he  will  not  readily  rally.  With  great  fair¬ 
ness,  Mr.  Brooks  has  published  in  his  own  paper  all  that  has  been  written  on  both  sides.  We  are  compelled 
also  to  say  that  the  prelate  has  betrayed  an  irritability  of  temper  throughout  the  controversy,  not  becoming 
an  ecclesiastic.  He  has  indulged  in  The  use  of  language,  not  to  the  credit  of  his  training  or  his  taste.  He 
•has  resorted,  as  it  seems  to  us,  to  quibbles  and  sophistries,  unworthy  of  one  who  ought  to  wear  on  his 
frontlet  that  apostolic  direction—"  In  simplicity  and  Godly  sincerity,  not  by  fleshly  wisdom,  but  by  the 
grace  of  God." 

After  all,  he  has  left  his  case  in  a  position,  which  “  casts  ominous  conjecture  on  the  whole  success.”  In 
his  first  letter  he  accuses  Mr.  Brooks  of  falsehood.  Notwithstanding  this  charge,  he  enters  into  controversy 
with  that  gentleman.  He  does  not  yet  deem  him  beneath  his  notice,  but  corresponds  with  him.  Several 
letters  pass  between  the  parties,  the  Archbishop  reiterating  the  first  charge  of  falsehood  against  his  oppo¬ 
nent.  Proof  being  advanced  rapidly  and  incontestably  by  Mr.  Brooks  in  support  of  his  assertion,  the  Arch¬ 
bishop  became  restive  and  excited,  like  the  author,  under  the  peltings  of  criticism  of  Mr.  Sheridan's 
rehearsal. 


The  Independent,  speaking  of  f  John,  says  : 

Returning  from  the  Vatican  to  proclaim  to  the  faithful  the  glorious  triumph  of  the  Church  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  Immaculate  Conception,  he  finds  his  own  inclosure  invaded  and  the  church  trodden  under  foot  by  the 
profane.  In  sudden  choler  he  issues  a  manifesto  declaring  that  good  Catholics  will  not  regard  the  law,  and 
threatening  swift  retribution  upon  its  authors.  Finding  that  this  insolent  document  is  met  with  a  universal 
jeer,  he  proceeds  to  assail  the  Hon.  Erastus  Brooks,  of  the  Senate,  charging  him  with  falsehood,  in  the  asser¬ 
tion  made  by  him  in  debate,  that  the  Archbishop  holds  five  millions  of  property.  Mr.  Brooks  went  quietly  to 
work,  and  produced  from  the  records  of  deeds  the  indisputable  proof  of  his  statement. 

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *|*  * 

Mr.  Brooks  has  kept  his  temper  and  maintained  the  courtesies  of  debate,  persistently  reiterating  the 
facts  with  the  evidence. 

************* 

Mr.  Brooks  has  acquitted  himself  with  great  credit.  This  is  his  first  appearance  in  the  political  arena, 
and  he  bids  fair  to  become  a  man  of  mark.” 


The  New  York  Day  Book,  in  posting  up  the  subject,  says  : 

It  appears  to  us  that  the  Bishop  would  have  done  much  better  if  he  had  come  out  in  the  first  place  and 
proven  Mr.  Brooks’  speech  in  the  Senate  false,  and  not  wait  until  the  Senator  has  piled  up  forty-five  facts 
to  sustain  his  assertion. 

Now,  after  he  has  proved  what  he  said  in  the  Senate,  and  what  Bishop  Hughes  said  was  a  lie,  the  Bishop 
refuses  to  give  up  the  property,  but  sticks  to  it  that  Brooks  lies,  and  that  all  decent  people  will  say  so.  In 
our  opinion,  there  must  be  but  very  few  decent  people  in  New  York,  if  all  of  them  believe  that  Brooks  has 
not  proven  the  Bishop  a  falsifier.  We  are  afraid  that  about  nine-tenths  of  the  reading  community  will  say 
that  the  Bishop  has  come  out  of  this  controversy  rather  shabbily,  and  look  upon  him  as  a  “  used-up  man.” 


FROM  THE  NEW  YORK  SUNDAY  TIMES. 

This  controversy  will  have  an  immense  effect  upon  the  country  at  large.  The  clothing  of  the  lamb  has 
been  stripped  from  the  shoulders  of  the  wolf.  Americans  perceive  that  there  must  be  some  cause  for  the 
recent  upheavings  of  the  masses  against  foreign  influence  and  religious  subtlety — that  there  is  truth  in  some 
of  the  warnings  against  that  influence  of  religion  over  politics  which  the  latter  has  undertaken  to  destroy  by 
the  use  of  its  own  weapons.  It  is  a  great  thing  for  the  world  at  large,  too,  that  the  head  of  the  Romish 
Church  in  America  turns  out  to  have  been  a  blackguard  in  disguise,  to  whom  equivocation  is  a  charitable 
word  for  personal  application.  For  drawing  to  a  head  a  secret  fester  on  the  body  politic  of  the  country,  Mr. 
Brooks  should  receive  the  thanks  of  the  whole  Union. 


FROM  THE  ALBANY  REGISTER. 

WHY  DON’T  THEY  PUBLISH  THEM? 

Will  somebody  tell  us  why  the  Seward  organ  does  not  publish  the  official  documents  lately  issued  by 
11  +  John,  Archbishop  of  the  Province  of  New  York.”  They  are  full  of  matter  for  speculation,  and  are  entitled 
to  circulation  at  the  hands  of  those  organs.  Governor  Seward  said  of  the  Bishop,  “He  is  my  friend — I 
honor,  respect,  and  confide  in  him and  it  is  a  marvel  that  his  disciples  should  ignore  the  Bishop  in  this  time 
of  his  need. 

Are  the  Seward  people  sinking  under  the  pressure  of  the  Bishop’s  support?  Are  they  apprehensive  that 
the  American  people  will  start  buck  from  association  with  a  party  resting  upon  such  pillars  as  Romish  Bishops, 
and  the  foreign  influence  that  cluster  around  him  ?  Do  they  dread  that  the  national  instincts,  the  American 


OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS.  81 


sympathies,  the  pride  of  country  in  the  hearts  of  the  people,  will  revolt  at  alliances  against  their  country¬ 
men,  their  republicanism,  and  their  faith  ?  Do  they  appreciate  the  spirit  which  pervades  these  issues  from 
the  Arch-Episcopacy  of  the  Province  of  New  York,  and  fear  that  they  may  he  appreciated  by  the  mass  of  the 
American  people  ? 

■Where  is  the  Evening  Journal,  the  Times ,  the  Rochester  Democrat ,  and  the  Buffalo  Express,  that  their 
voice  is  not  heard  in  his  vindication  ?  Why  are  they  silent?  These  organs  have  plenty  of  denunciation  for 
the  “  Know  Nothings,” — plenty  of  denunciation  for  American  and  Protestant  men,  for  American  principles 
and  American  policy ;  there  is  no  lack  of  invention — no  paucity  of  contrivance  against  them.  While  their 
genius  for  fiction  has  revelled  to  a  degree  mounting  to  the  sublime,  so  far  as  the  “  Know  Nothings”  are  con¬ 
cerned,  had  they  no  word  of  consolation  for  the  Bishop  ?  Do  they  mean  to  abandon  him  utterly  ?  Do  they 
lack  the  courage  to  confess  his  association,  or  the  manhood  to  acknowledgehis  friendship  ?  Have  they  forgot 
past  favors,  and,  repudiating  the  obligations  of  common  gratitude,  do  they  intend  to  let  him  wander  a  politi¬ 
cal  mendicant,  and  die  in  a  political  almshouse  ?  Do  they  mean  to  let  him  be  laid  in  the  political  potter’s 
field? 

We  protest  against  this  desertion  by  the  Seward  organs  of  their  old  friends.  It  isn’t  manly.  It  isn’t 
honest.  The  Bishop  has  earned  their  support— he  can  claim  it  as  the  reward  of  past  services.  If  he  finds, 
however,  that  his  claims  are  repudiated,  his  experience  will  have  furnished  another  illustration  of  a  melan¬ 
choly  truth :  that  politicians,  as  well  as  republics,  are  ungrateful. 

FROM  THE  NEW  YORK  CRUSADER. 

(Rotes  on  t  John,  hy  W.  3.  Tisdale.) 

The  t  Bishop  of  the  “  Province”  of  New  York,  may  venture  to  call  the  managers  of  his  property  fools  and 
bungling  idiots,  if  he  likes,  but  we  are  not  disposed  to  insult  them  by  accusing  them  of  such  stultish  misman¬ 
agement  as  they  are  charged  with  by  the  t  Bishop.  This  is  supposing  he  is  not,  himself,  the  manager  of 
“John  Hughes’”  property,  but,  if  he  “  John  Hughes,”  is  the  manager  of  his  own  property,  then  t  John 
Hughes  is  a  great  t - to  so  mismanage  his  own  vast  possession  as  to  be  unable  to  answer,  under  a  fort¬ 

night,  the  simple  question — whether  he  does,  or  does  not,  own  certain  property  deeded  to  him. 

Our  amiable  cross  Bishop  has  another  fling  at  the  American  people,  in  his  last  long  letter,  and  talks  of  “  the 

IMBECILE  CREDULITY  OF  A  PUBLIC  CALLING  ITSELF  ENLIGHTENED.” 

Such  consummate  impudence  and  brazen  insolence,  could  only  emanate  from  one  so  intensely  scarlet  as 
to  be  unable  to  blush  more  deeply. 

Mrs.  Opie  may  now  hide  her  diminished  head,  for  Bishop  Hughes’  dissertation  on  lying,  throws  her  essays 
on  detraction  so  far  into  the  shade,  that  they  will  never  be  referred  to  again  as  good  authority.  He  manifests 
so  profound  a  knowledge  of  the  analysis  of  falsehood,  that  we  are  constrained  to  believe  his  ability  in  hand¬ 
ling  the  subject  has  grown  out  of  an  extensive  practice  of  the  art.  His  fine-spun  theories  are  evidently 
founded  upon  those  advanced  in  the  “  Secreta  monita  Societatis  Jesus,”  or  secret  instructions  of  the  Jesuits, 
wherein  lying  and  stealing  are  made  to  be  considered  virtues,  under  certain  circumstances — such,  for  instance, 
as  bringing  “  treasure”  into  the  church. 

Hereafter,  we  shall  not  be  surprised  at  any  specimen  of  the  bravo  and  ruffian  style  of  literature  which  may 
emanate  from  the  gall-dipped  pen  of  that  modern  Wolsey,  whose  heart  “  is  crammed  with  arrogancy,  spleen 
and  pride.” 

Verily,  t  John,  you  are  no  part  or  parcel  of  this  age,  this  country,  or  this  people;  you  belong  to  other 
times,  another  place,  and  another  race ;  and  it  is  this  stubborn  fact,  so  forcibly  brought  to  view  by  “  the  late 
and  improved  sense  of  the  term  Americanism,”  that  rankles  in  your  very  soul,  and  makes  you  as  snarly, 
and  venomous,  and  ugly,  as  a  cross-grained  cur  in  the  dog-days. 

“  Go  !  get  thee  to  a  nunnery !” 


MIND  YOUR  BUSINESS. 

The  Utica  Telegraph,  a  paper  entertaining  no  political  sympathies  in  common  with 
Senator  Brooks,  says : 

Bishop  Hughes  will  find  that  he  cannot  send  anybody  out  of  the  window  in  this  country,  even  with  covered 
hands.  God  bless  us  1  has  it  come  to  that  and  this?  Let  Bishop  Hughes  mind  his  business,  and  attend  to 
his  legitimate  duties,  and  he  will  have  no  occasion  to  get  out  of  temper  with  the  press.  His  ambitious, 
tyrannical  and  un-American  opinions  and  demeanor,  are  like  curses  coming  home  to  roost  upon  him.  His 
controversy  with  The  Express  has  placed  him  in  the  most  undignified  position  we  have  ever  before  seen  him. 
Our  opinions  concur  with  that  of  every  respectable  journal  we  have  perused. 

FKOM  THE  PHILADELPHIA  AMERICAN  BANNER. 

( From  Tisdale's  Correspondence.) 

The  controversy  now  going  on  between  our  American  Senator,  Hon.  Erastus  Brooks,  and  the  celebrated 
clerical  politician  John  Hughes,  appointed  by  the  Pope,  Bishop  of  the  “  Province  of  New  York,”  is  command¬ 
ing  a  large  share  of  public  attention.  It  grew  out  of  the  passage  of  a  Church  Property  bil),  by  our  Legisla¬ 
ture  vestin'*  the  property  of  the  churches  in  the  hands  of  the  trustees,  instead  of  the  bishops. 

On  Bishop  Hughes’  return  from  a  visit  to  his  “holy  father”  in  Borne,  he  protested  against  the  observance 
of  the  stipulations  in  the  bill,  and  intimated  in  very  broad  terms  that  there  were  ways  to  avoid  a  compliance 
with  the  requirements  of  the  law.  As  the  Bishop  is,  and  always  has  been,  above  our  laws  (being  on  the 
platform  of  his  “  higher  law ”  friend  Seward),  he  cannot  now  be  called  an  outlaw ;  but  if  any  one  who  had 
heretofore  subscribed  to,  and  acknowledged  allegiance  to  our  laws,  had  thus  proclaimed  his  determination 
avoid  the  action  of  a  law  of  the  State,  he  would  certainly  be  no  more  nor  less  than  an  outlaw. 


- - -  "  - . . .  "  '  ==« 

DEWITT  &  DAVENPORT, 

PUBLISHERS,  BOOKSELLERS, 

AND 

‘£BI)tile0tile  ml  detail  Dealers  in  Dcaks, 

CHEAP  PUBLICATIONS,  PERIODICALS,  AMERICAN  AND  FOREIGN 

2*j:e'vs7's:e*.a-:e»:e:i*.s6. 

160  &  162  NASSAU  STREET,  NEW  YORK. 


D.  &  D.  would  respectfully  call  the  attention  of  the  Trade  to  their  unequalled  facilities  for 
filling  and  forwarding  all  Orders  for  Books,  Magazines,  Cheap  Publications,  Newspapers,  &c., 
at  the  publishers’  lowest  prices. 

Dealers  will  find  it  to  their  interest  to  have  their  orders  packed  at  our  Establishment,  as 
we  will  inclose  in  our  package  (without  extra  charge),  anything  else  they  may  have  to  receive 
from  New  York,  so  that  it  will  reach  them  without  extra  freight. 

D.  &  D.  do  not  say  that  they  will  supply  Books,  &c.,  in  advance  of  any  other  house,  but 
will  abide  by  the  universal  decision  of  their  customers,  that  the  promptness  with  which  their 
orders  are  always  despatched,  is  of  itself  a  sufficient  guarantee  that  they  cannot  be  beat. 

HUMANITY  IN  THE  CITY. 

BEING  A  SERIES  OF  DISCOURSES  RECENTLY  DELIVERED  IN  NEW  YORK. 

BY  REV.  EDWIN  H.  CHAPIN. 

1  vol.,  12mo.,  cloth.  Price  $1. 

DISCOURSE  I. — The  Lessoxs  of  the  Street. 

“  II.— Max  axd  Hachixery. 

“  III. — Strife  for  Pbeceoexce. 

“  IV.— The  Symbols  of  the  Republic. 

“  Y.— The  Sprixgs  of  Social  Life. 

“  VI. — The  Allies  of  the  Tempter. 

“  VII. — The  CniLDP.EX  of  the  Poor. 

“  VIH. — The  Help  of  Religiox. 

EXTRACT  FROM  THE  PREFACE. 

“  This  volume  aims  at  applying  the  highest  standard  of  Morality  and  Religion  to  the  phases  of  every-day 
life.  In  order,  however,  that  the  view  with  which  these  discourses  have  been  prepared  may  not  be  miscon¬ 
ceived,  I  wish  merely  to  say,  that  I  am  far  from  supposing  that  these  are  the  only  themes  to  be  preached,  or 
that  they  constitute  the  highest  class  of  practical  subjects,  and  shall  be  sorry  if,  in  any  way,  they  seem  to 
imply  a  neglect  of  that  interior  and  holy  life  which  is  the  spring  not^only  of  right  affections,  but  of  clear  per¬ 
ception  and  sturdy  every-day  duty.  I  hope,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  very  aspects  of  this  busy  city  life — 
the  very  problems  which  start  out  of  it — will  tend  to  convince  men  of  the  necessity  of  this  inward  and 
regenerating  principle.  Nevertheless,  I  maintain  that  these  topics  have  a  place  in  the  circle  of  the  preach¬ 
er’s  work,  and  he  need  entertain  no  fear  of  desecrating  his  pulpit  by  secular  themes  who  seeks  to  consecrate 
all  things  in  any  way  involving  the  action  and  welfare  of  men,  by  the  spirit  and  the  aims  of  His  Religion 
who,  while  he  preached  the  Gospel,  fed  the  hungry  and  healed  the  sick,  and  touched  the  issues  of  every  tem¬ 
poral  want.  I  may  have  failed  in  the  method,  I  trust  I  have  not  in  the  purpose.” 

1 


IF^IO-G^IF’IHSCJTTT^  OP 

THE  NEW  YORK  CRUSADER. 

AN  ANTI-JESUITICAL  AMERICAN  WEEKLY  PAPER. 

UNDER  THE  EDITORIAL  CHARGE  OF 

Glr.  TP  .  SECCHI  3DB  O  A&.  S  3La  X  , 

And  having  as  regular  contributors, 

Hhe  Reformer  of  Italy — ALEXANDER  GAVASiJI, 

W.  Scudder  Tisdale,  Esq.,  of  New  York  City  ;  Josiah  F.  Polk,  Esq.,  of  Washington 
City  ;  Rev.  T.  Boorne,  Western  New  York  ;  and  other  eminent  writers, 
from  all  parts  of  the  Union,  all  of  whom  belong  to  the 
Protestant  National  American  Party. 

Office  298  Broadway,  N.  Y.  Subscription,  $2  00  per  annum,  in  advance. 

VOLUME  IV. 

PLATFORM  OF  THE  NEW  YORK  CRUSADER. 

“Americans  shall  rule  America. 

“  Abrogation  or  alteration  of  the  Naturalization  Law. 

“  Incessant  war  against  the  system  of  the  Papacy. 

“  Religious  and  civil  freedom  at  home  and  abroad. 

“  No  persecutions  nor  inquisitions  for  diversity  of  opinions. 

“  The  maintenance  of  public  schools  at  any  sacrifice. 

“  Protection  to  American  citizens  abroad,  and  their  rights  respected  in  whatever  couti- 
try  they  may  be. 

“  The  prohibition  to  Catholic  bishops  of  holding  in  their  hands  the  monopoly  of  church- 
property.”  *  5  .  ^  A  \ 

The  NEW  YORK  CRUSADER  is  also  recommended  by  the  following  distinguished 

clergymen  : 

Rev.  Dr.  Murray  (“  Kirwan  of  Elizabethtown,  N.  J. ;  Rev.  Dr.  G.  B.  Cheever,  Rev. 
R.  Baird.  D.  D.,  Rev.  Geo.  Potts,  D.  D.,  Rev.  E.  R.  Fairchild,  D.  D.,  Rev.  Thomas  De  Witt, 
D.  D.,  Rev.  John  Knox,  D.  D.,  Rev.  John  S.  Inskip,  Rev.  Dr.  Jessup,  and  many  others. 

The  following  eminent  Americans  endorse  the  principles  of  the"  N.  Y.  CRUSADER, 
as  may  be  seen  from  letters,  fyc.,  addressed  to  us  : 

Hon.  Wh.  R.  Smith,  of  Alabama,  member  of  Congress. 

Hon.  E.  Joy  Morris,  of  Pennsylvania. 

Hon.  James  O.  Putnam,  Senator,  of  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

Hon.  Thos.  R.  Whitney,  member  of  Congress,  N.  Y. 

Hon.  Erastus  Brooks,  Senator,  N.  Y. 

Daniel  Ullman,  Esq.  Prof.  S.  F.  B.  Morse. 

James  W.  Barker,  Esq. 

% 


THE  MYSTERIES  0E  HOME  IN  THE  19TH  CENTURY, 

OR  THE 

COURT  OF  ROME,  FROM  1814  TO  1855. 

THE  MOST  THRILLING  HISTORY  OF  MODERN  TIMES. 

WRITTEN  BY  TWO  PENS, 

POH.  THE  3T»  GiRTT&LAJDlEEEt.. 

The  Mysteries  of  Rome  will  be  commenced  in  the  Crusader  the  first  week  in  June  next, 
each  number  illustrated  by  an  engraving  expressly  designed  in  Italy. 

To  the  Mysteries  of  Rome,  will  follow  as  a  sequel, 

'x’xsss  bJtst js§b:E3:o.XE:jss  q>^  the 

AND 

THE  SECRET  HISTORY  OF  THE  INQUISITION 

in  Europe  and  South  America — all  illustrated. 


THE  NEW  YORK  EXPRESS. 


TO  THE  ETJBLIC. 

The  New  York  Expp.e=3  newspaper  is  an  old,  well-known  Journal,  whose  credit  and  character  have  been 
established  for  many  years,  and  whose  circulation  is  more  or  less  throughout  all  parts  of  the  United  States. 
To  extend  the  circulation,  and  thus  to  enlarge  its  sphere  of  influence,  we  take  the  liberty  of  laying  before  you 
its  Prospectus  for  1855,  with  the  hope  you  will  find  it  convenient  and  agreeable  to  use  your  efforts  therefor. 


PRGSPECTU3  OF  1855,  OF  THE  NEW  YORK  EXPRESS. 

This  Newspaper  is  Published  in  the  City  of  New  York,  by  JAMES  S,-  ERASTUS 
BROOKS.  Office,  corner  of  Wall  and  Nassau  Streets,  New  York. 

The  New  York  Express 

is  a  Daily  Journal,  the  first  issue  of  which  is  about  4  A.M.,  but  there  are  successive  editions  during  the  day, 
in  order  to  publish  the  very  latest  news  by  Mail  or  Telegraph,  until  5  or  6  p.h.  The  price  is  $7  per  annum, 
with  a  choice  of  any  of  the  editions. 

The  Semi-Weekly  Express 

is  issued  every  Tuesday  and  Friday,  on  a  sheet  of  the  largest  size  daily  paper,  full  of  select,  commercial, 
miscellaneous  and  news  intelligence.  Price  $4  per  annum. 

The  Weekly  Express,  Double  Sheet, 

is  a  quarto,  published  on  Friday,  containing  Fifty-six  solid  columns  of  reading  intelligence,  and  is,  by  all 

odds,  tlie  larsrest  a  ml  fullest  AVccJtly  Paper  in  tlie  World.  It  is  of  itself,  a  Book. 

Price,  for  a  year,  £2,  single  copy.  Twenty  copies  to  one  address  for  $30.  Ten  copies  for  $16  to  one  address. 

FOR  CLUBS. 


THE  DOLLAR  (Weekly)  EXPRESS 

is  a  single  sheet,  published  on  Wednesday,  containing  the  select  news  of  the  Daily;  single  sheet,  $1.  Twenty 
copies  will  be  sent  to  one  address  for  $15.  Ten  copies  to  one  address  for  $S.  Five  copies  for  $4  50 — making 
the  cheapest  newspaper  in  the  United  States. 

Payments  in  all  cases  in  advance.  Clergymen  and  charitable  institutions  can  have  the  Double  Sheet 
Weekly  for  $1  50.  Current  Bank  Bills  of  any  of  the  States  receivable,  and  the  Proprietors  taking  the  risk  of 
the  remittance,  if  mailed  in  the  presence  of  the  Postmaster. 

The  EXPRESS  is  a  steady,  straightforward  Journal,  wholly  and  thoroughly  American  in  heart  and  senti¬ 
ment-uniting  a  healthy  and  rational  love  of  Progress,  with  that  sound  conservative  spirit  that  tempers  all 
progress  with  reason  and  moderation.  Its  Editors  are  most  ardently  devoted  to  a  Union  of  these  States,  and 
they  deem  the  preservation  of  that  Union,  in  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  and  of  the  compromises  in  which 
it  was  formed,  of  the  highest  importance,  not  only  to  the  existence  of  Constitutional  Government,  and  of 
Liberty  itself,  but  to  the  salvation  of  the  people  from  civil  and  intestine  wars.  We  shall,  therefore,  not  only 
do  nothing  to  make  the  North  hate  the  South,  or  the  South  the  North,  but  on  the  contrary,  everything  we 
can  do  to  draw  closer  the  bonds  of  the  Union,  and  to  make  one  section  respect  and  love  the  other.  Our  aim 
will  be  to  make  the  EXPRESS  a  truly  American  Journal,  worthy  the  support  of  all  those  who 
truly  love  their  country,  and  feel  devoted  to  its  future  honor  and  prosperity. 

Tlie  Editors  of  the  EXPRESS  spare  no  pains,  or  money,  to  collect,  by  correspondence,  or  through  the  tele¬ 
graph,  the  very  latest  intelligence  from  all  parts  of  the  United  States,  and  from  other  countries ;  and  tiiey 
allow  no  Journal  to  surpass  theirs,  in  the  publication  of  the  very  latest  News,  Political,  Commercial,  or  Mis¬ 
cellaneous.  Their  Weekly  sheet  is  a  Family  Journal,  which,  for  the  decency,  decorum,  aud  sound 
principles,  moral  and  social,  that  pervade  its  columns,  they  can  cheerfully  commend  to  the  introduction  of 
any  circle.  Their  Semi-weekly  and  Daily  sheets,  in  the  variety,  extent  and  accuracy  of  their  intelligence,  as 
to  Trade,  Navigation  or  Currency,  are  seldom  equalled,  and  never  excelled.  No  Merchant,  Trader,  Farmer 
or  Planter  can  afford  to  do  without  such  a  Newspaper,  for,  in  the  useful,  money-making  information  it  brings 
home  to  him,  he  will  be  repaid,  every  year,  in  his  own  pocket,  twenty  times  over.  Their  mechanical  work  is 
done  by  a  powerful  6team-engine,  now  driving  four  different  steam-presses  ;  and  hence  they  are  able  to  print 
tlie  quantity  of  useful  matter  they  do,  at  so  cheap  a  price. 

The  NEW  YORK  EXPRESS  is  intended  to  be  both  a  Family  and  Business  Newspaper.  Its 
broad  and  ample  columns  will  contain — 

THE  NEWS  OF  THE  DAY. 

THE  PRICES  CURRENT. 

REVIEWS  OF  THE  MARKETS. 

THE  KATES  OF  EXCHANGE  IN  NEW  YORK  and 

elsewhere. 

BANKNOTE  TABLE. 

MONEY  MARKET  IN  NEW  YORK. 

Address,  at  our  expense, 

J.  &  E.  BROOKS,  New  York. 


CORRESPONDENCE, FOREIGN  AND  DOMESTIC. 
MISCELLANEOUS  READING. 

NOTICES  OF  NEW  WORKS. 

ESSAYS  UPON  THE  ARTS  AND  FASHIONS. 

SPIRIT  OF  THE  AMERICAN  AND  BRITISH  PRESS. 
AN  OCCASIONAL  TALE. 


L65824 


vol.16. 


ISSUED  TO 


/  &  rra,  v 


ts#/'/ 6* 


